• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sperm Ownership After Deposit, Male Parental Rights, and Child Support:

ludin said:
the only point I really disagree with these rulings are when it comes to protected condom sex and you throw it in the trash and the women goes and
gets it and then stuffs some of it inside of her to get pregnant.

not happened to me but has happened to quite a few other men. they are then stuck with 18 years of support
for a dishonest and what I would consider fraudulent act.

either way the fact is that guys need to be very careful who they sleep with and where they deposit.
Click to expand...

Another situation that happens with condoms: guy puts a hole in the condom to get her pregnant so she cant leave him to go away to college, or move away, to tie her to him, etc.

**** heads are **** heads, not everything can be controlled by laws.
 
Bodhisattva said:
All the power that needs to happen is for her to make a Choice. Something that she already legally, and rightfully, has.

Does want to raise the kid without the man's money or support... have a baby.

Don't want to raise the kid without the man's money or support... have an abortion.

She has 100% of the Power.
Click to expand...

You gave her 100% of the power when you chose to have sex with her.

Are you saying you should not be held accountable for your choices? She is held accountable for hers. If she gets pregnant, there is no escaping consequences. Have a kid, abortion, miscarriage, death during preg/childbirth...those are her only options and she can die during the first 3 too. A man *escapes* consequences in all but one. What bothers men here is that they claim they have no control over it. Well they do, it just has to happen before they enjoy themselves and it seems that men almost never consider that a fair or reasonable option.
 
Lursa said:
You gave her 100% of the power when you chose to have sex with her.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Not with regards to child support. The Government gave her 100% of the Power.

I have a better point though... the fact that you ignored the logic behind my point.

Are you saying you should not be held accountable for your choices? She is held accountable for hers. If she gets pregnant, there is no escaping consequences. Have a kid, abortion, miscarriage, death during preg/childbirth...those are her only options and she can die during the first 3 too.
Click to expand...

...so I can ask again:

Does want to raise the kid without the man's money or support... have a baby.

Don't want to raise the kid without the man's money or support... have an abortion.

She has 100% of the Power.

A man *escapes* consequences in all but one. What bothers men here is that they claim they have no control over it. Well they do, it just has to happen before they enjoy themselves and it seems that men almost never consider that a fair or reasonable option.
Click to expand...

She has ALL OF THE POWER. She can not sleep with a man. Period. End of story.

If you are going to use that argument then you should realize that it starts with her, the one that can get pregnant. If she does not want to get pregnant and get to enjoy exercising her legal right to abort or not then she should not have sex. Having her "enjoy" herself and then force the man to literally pay for her pleasure is pretty disgusting.
 
Lursa said:
Another situation that happens with condoms: guy puts a hole in the condom to get her pregnant so she cant leave him to go away to college, or move away, to tie her to him, etc.

**** heads are **** heads, not everything can be controlled by laws.
Click to expand...

Right... because that happens. Guy wants a kid to tie her down? WTF? :lol:
 
Aunt Spiker said:
It has?

The new trend, hunh?

lol

Again - the ***** Bank Rules. Don't open an account and do not deposit if you do not accept the terms. Perhaps these men should look at a woman and go "Is this piece really worth the risk?"
Click to expand...

it was deposited in another account and there was a manual transfer.
I never said it was a new trend I said I have seen stories where this has occurred.
 
Removable Mind said:
You are by far not the first man to bring this type argument before the Judicial system. Surely after mega millions of children being born in the US your argument has had to come up more than a few times in courts across the US. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has already shot down you're argument.

Do believe men have parental responsibilities to children they've sired that were born under so-called "wanted circumstances"?
Click to expand...

Why would the situation be different? Ownership would still be given up upon deposit, so he would still have to get ownership back after birth.
 
Removable Mind said:
Do believe men have parental responsibilities to children they've sired that were born under so-called "wanted circumstances"?
Click to expand...

That is the whole argument and what some of us are arguing... that he should be able to opt out and have ZERO responsibilites....
 
Bodhisattva said:
All the power that needs to happen is for her to make a Choice. Something that she already legally, and rightfully, has.

Does want to raise the kid without the man's money or support... have a baby.

Don't want to raise the kid without the man's money or support... have an abortion.

She has 100% of the Power.
Click to expand...

Because of a few unhappy customers?

Why? When there are plenty of customers willing to not only accept the guidelines and regulations without griping, but who also endeavor to support the rights of the bank to function according to its existing rules and guidelines.

Your view is:

Customers complain about rules, puts pressure on business.
Business closes its doors...
And then the customers complain that the business closed it doors. They wanted the business to remain open and simply accept any and all transactions and incur the results thereof.

Circular Logic.

Customers have choices, too. If they don't want to operate in that environment then don't open an account or make a deposit.

By permitting the bank to function as it wishes to conduct business, the bank is happy.
by the bank allowing the customers to opt in or opt out of business WITH the bank, the customers retain their rights.

Win win. I see no issue, here.

Yet it seems that some simply don't like the manner in which the bank operates and therefor wants to overtake the bank and set their own rules. That is not how it works.
 
This property analogy when talking about children is stretched too thin for me to take seriously.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Because of a few unhappy customers?

Why? When there are plenty of customers willing to not only accept the guidelines and regulations without griping, but who also endeavor to support the rights of the bank to function according to its existing rules and guidelines.

Your view is:

Customers complain about rules, puts pressure on business.
Business closes its doors...
And then the customers complain that the business closed it doors. They wanted the business to remain open and simply accept any and all transactions and incur the results thereof.

Circular Logic.

Customers have choices, too. If they don't want to operate in that environment then don't open an account or make a deposit.

By permitting the bank to function as it wishes to conduct business, the bank is happy.
by the bank allowing the customers to opt in or opt out of business WITH the bank, the customers retain their rights.

Win win. I see no issue, here.

Yet it seems that some simply don't like the manner in which the bank operates and therefor wants to overtake the bank and set their own rules. That is not how it works.
Click to expand...

I have logically laid out how there can be equity between the sexes regarding this issue. You are doing what RM does... ignoring the logic behind the argument and tossing out the "whining" card. I have my children. I love them and always wanted them. I pay child support. I pay too much due to my lying bitch of an ex-wife but that is another story. The fact is that as it stands, men are as you say... dump their load and have zero say in anything afterwards. Women get 100% of the power of not only their medical rights, which they should have, but of the man's life for the next 18 years as well. The women want it all. I can understand you backing this argument but RM? He is a guy. Why is he buying the sexism? The way I laid it out the women still retains ALL of her medical rights... 100% all of her power over her life and reproductive cycle... but that isn't good enough for some of you. You want the man to have to pay money for her decision when she can simply opt out and have an abortion if he wants out. No. You want it all and then when a man talks about the inequity you call it whining. Shame the hell on some of you.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
If one does not wish to live by the stipulations set forward by the ***** Bank Trust and Ownership, one doesn't need to open an account or put a deposit into the ***** Bank.

It's quite simple.

Perhaps one would be more content with an account at a Sperm Bank, instead? Or perhaps a Bank of the Solo Mission? I hear they have great Rate-of-Returns with few complaints and are accessible from anywhere.
Click to expand...

The ***** Bank drives a hard bargain... has you by the balls.
 
Last edited:
Bodhisattva said:
Right... because that happens. Guy wants a kid to tie her down? WTF? :lol:
Click to expand...

Do you think I made that up? Yes, the case I'm thinking of is a guy who's girlfriend was going out of state to grad school. But I've read about it elsewhere and of course, there was a Law and Order on a case too, lol. "Ripped from the headlines!"
 
Bodhisattva said:
Wrong. Not with regards to child support. The Government gave her 100% of the Power.
Click to expand...

Sorry, men know the law. And that means they had 100% control. If they didnt want to risk child support, then they could have chosen not to have sex.

And women dont have 100% of the power when it comes to child support. If the woman isnt the custodial parent, she has to pay. And women do not have 100% of the 'power' in deciding who is the custodial parent.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Does want to raise the kid without the man's money or support... have a baby.

Don't want to raise the kid without the man's money or support... have an abortion.

She has 100% of the Power.

She has ALL OF THE POWER. She can not sleep with a man. Period. End of story.
Click to expand...

He has all the power he needs. He's not entitled to sex without consequences. Women arent. I already spelled that out for you. Why should men not equally be held accountable for their choice to have sex?

If he doenst want the consequences, he has 100% of the control and power if he doesnt want to pay child support. No one forces him to have sex. That is 100% his decision. Are you saying men cant control that 'decision?'

If he gives up his 'power' in order to get laid...that is his choice and he may have to pay the consequences. Just like her.
 
Bodhisattva said:
If you are going to use that argument then you should realize that it starts with her, the one that can get pregnant. If she does not want to get pregnant and get to enjoy exercising her legal right to abort or not then she should not have sex. Having her "enjoy" herself and then force the man to literally pay for her pleasure is pretty disgusting.
Click to expand...

Well then those men are pretty stupid to place themselves at that kind of risk, arent they? If they dont like the law...why are they risking it? Um...exactly who's pleasure are we talking about here? LMAO, are men having sex (when they dont plan to have a kid) for any other reason? And you critisize women for enjoying it? WHat kind of hypocrisy is that?


Here's that question again: why are men taking that risk when they know it's there?
 
Bodhisattva said:
I have logically laid out how there can be equity between the sexes regarding this issue. You are doing what RM does... ignoring the logic behind the argument and tossing out the "whining" card. I have my children. I love them and always wanted them. I pay child support. I pay too much due to my lying bitch of an ex-wife but that is another story. The fact is that as it stands, men are as you say... dump their load and have zero say in anything afterwards. Women get 100% of the power of not only their medical rights, which they should have, but of the man's life for the next 18 years as well. The women want it all. I can understand you backing this argument but RM? He is a guy. Why is he buying the sexism? The way I laid it out the women still retains ALL of her medical rights... 100% all of her power over her life and reproductive cycle... but that isn't good enough for some of you. You want the man to have to pay money for her decision when she can simply opt out and have an abortion if he wants out. No. You want it all and then when a man talks about the inequity you call it whining. Shame the hell on some of you.
Click to expand...

if you don't like the rules of the game then don't play.
no women forces a man to have sex with her if she did that is rape.

by agreeing to have sex with a women you are basically taking on the risk of said activity
that includes.

STD's
pregnancy
etc ...

you knowingly go into the activity accepting such risks.
one of the reasons I held off not sleeping with someone till I met my wife.
 
It's not about property, it's about liability.

Children aren't the property of parents, but parents are liable for their children. Children aren't "owned". If you impregnate a woman then you are responsible for the child.

In terms of sperm and egg ownership, that only applies if you're dealing with a third party like a sperm bank, where contract law is involved. That's because a third party has technical control over where the sperm goes and you need to define what that means. There is a middle man between the point where the sperm leaves you and where it ends up.

If you're a man who has sex with a woman, you are already making a direct choice about where that sperm goes, through your actions, which you are liable for. There's no middle man so ownership does not have to be defined.

The ownership angle is not very intelligent. You can't apply capitalism to biology in this way, because it's not commerce. Women have disproportionate power by virtue of where the child develops, and not due to sperm ownership. It's just a fact of nature.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I have logically laid out how there can be equity between the sexes regarding this issue. You are doing what RM does... ignoring the logic behind the argument and tossing out the "whining" card. I have my children. I love them and always wanted them. I pay child support. I pay too much due to my lying bitch of an ex-wife but that is another story. The fact is that as it stands, men are as you say... dump their load and have zero say in anything afterwards. Women get 100% of the power of not only their medical rights, which they should have, but of the man's life for the next 18 years as well. The women want it all. I can understand you backing this argument but RM? He is a guy. Why is he buying the sexism? The way I laid it out the women still retains ALL of her medical rights... 100% all of her power over her life and reproductive cycle... but that isn't good enough for some of you. You want the man to have to pay money for her decision when she can simply opt out and have an abortion if he wants out. No. You want it all and then when a man talks about the inequity you call it whining. Shame the hell on some of you.
Click to expand...

Women do not have 100 percent control of their reproductive cycle. Birth control does fail. By your logic, a man has control as well. It is called a condom or vasectomy (if the man never wants to have kids).

But when a woman is pregnant, the zygote, embryo, or fetus is using her biology to grow. That is why then she has complete autonomy. But if a child is born it is about the baby. Not her.

I have said this multiple time for years. The fight should not be whether or not to support your children, It should be reasonable support. Your "lying bitch ex-wife" should not have the ability to soak you for excessive support. It should be easy to adjust payments dependent on changes in income and loss of employment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom