Men's-rights activists seek right to decline fatherhood in event of unplanned pregnancy

You guys never heard the *turkey baster theory*.

All you do is take a turkey baster (with sperm ) inject it into the baby making factory (as i know some women thats all they know how to do produce babies and live off welfare) and your pregnant no man involved..

So if a women steals your sperm and uses it in a manner you did not aprove of she has a baby with your DNA and can prove it is your baby but can not prove the father actually had sex to have the baby..

The law is not equal.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

 

A man has ABSOLUTELY no control over whether a BABY is created??

Many of these hypothetical scenarios are ideal in nature.

It's pretty easy for me to demonstrate I am "safe" - a rubber is quite obvious, and the fluids look different if I'm shooting blanks because of an operation. (I'm a guy, if this has somehow escaped the reader).

It is not as easy, however, to determine this about my partner (presumed female, as I'd decline otherwise). Has she been taking her pill? Did she lapse in a dose or two? Are her tubes -really- tied?

It is my understanding that sex is preferable without a physical barrier - and the prospect of engaging in such a full-contact sport is honestly quite tempting.

Now - again, in an ideal scenario, I would know this person well enough to at least be prepared to assume the responsibility of parenthood should it be required - but, as I said - that's the problem with the hypothetical situations thus-far. We have a good time after a party or casual meeting (whatever lead to it), and go our separate ways.

I was lead to believe she was using protection in the form of birth control.

Now she's pregnant - with my DNA.

Should I be legally responsible for that child since the entire engagement happened under false pretense? The question isn't moral responsibility, but legal. My morals would have me including this person in my life a little more - she must have been something else to stand talking to me for more than an hour and agree to such an encounter, so I may as well. However - should the law be able to come in and say that I have to take responsibility for that child?

Here are the facts: I was misled. Whether this was with criminal intent or not - I was given false information with no means of verifying that information.

The pregnancy can be terminated. I know this is a touchy subject - but she has the option of terminating the pregnancy regardless of whether or not I give consent.

If I am to be held legally responsible, then what prevents women (and you know the type exist) from extorting this policy? Rather than convincing people to adopt and split for the child support, one can simply say "I'm safe" and get the child support. So, I can't say I really like that option. No need to institutionalize succubi.

On the other hand - I shouldn't be able to tramp around and simply use "She said she was safe" to get out of responsibility.

The only real way to solve this is to simply not hear any cases regarding bastard children unless both the parties involved signed and notarized a legal statement regarding the sexual relationship(s) in question.

Oh my god, classic! Thanks for the laugh, man. Maybe next year in Sophomore year of high school you can take biology, and learn the folly of your thoughts. Hey, I like fantasy too, but baby making has long entered the scientific field.

In all honesty - he has a point. I don't have much control over what happens after the initial exchange of fluids. She can take a day-after pill, have the pregnancy terminated at a later date, etc. She can also decide to carry a child to term even though we agreed, prior, that any unanticipated pregnancy would be terminated.

It's like if I decide to give you the keys to my car, and you go crash it. It still dinks my insurance. Thus - I don't hand out the keys to my car unless I -really- trust that person. I do the same with regards to sex - but, again, most of the cases that end up in courts do so because they are not ideal situations.

The only real way to solve this is to simply not hear any cases regarding bastard children unless both the parties involved signed and notarized a legal statement regarding the sexual relationship(s) in question.

reply to post by Aim64C


Excellent points. I'd elaborate by pointing out that until Gomez v. Perez illegitimate children had no rights to an unmarried father's support. This decision, based upon a common law view of the unmarried couple's relationship (a definable relationship) argued that the child was being discriminated against, in the child support system of law as they weren't being "equally protected". Except, of course, the fact is that the woman created this situation, and only looking at the "equal protection" when there is no "equal" or equatable status in the first place is bogus. The law does not insure that children have parents at all, this is NOT a right, as we understand rights. Basically, this decision, based upon a common law view of the parties relationship (ie., they were essentially married) has been used to base the entire system of unmarried child support obligations. A bait and switch.
There has always been a "signed and notarized legal statement" regarding the sexual relationship....it's worked for centuries...it's called marriage.
An excellent article on G v. P. and the court:
www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

Originally posted by thecinic
You guys never heard the *turkey baster theory*.

All you do is take a turkey baster (with sperm ) inject it into the baby making factory (as i know some women thats all they know how to do produce babies and live off welfare) and your pregnant no man involved..

So if a women steals your sperm and uses it in a manner you did not aprove of she has a baby with your DNA and can prove it is your baby but can not prove the father actually had sex to have the baby..

The law is not equal.

Are you serious? Did you read what you wrote? If there is sperm in the baster a MAN had to be involved!!

And explain sperm theft.

reply to post by thecinic


Thankfully I am wise enough to not keep my sperm laying around, unsecured. So theft is highly unlikely. Remember fellas... Don't leave your sperm on the porch, in the shed, or anywhere that welfare moms might have easy access to it!

A public service announcement from Americans against irresponsible sperm handlers.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


I'm glad someone got it.......

That would be my defense

*judge she stole my sperm*

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Sperm theft -

The act of stealing a mans sperm without his knowledge.

IE used condem laying around (most common)
IE Using your hand as a cup (common)
Bed sheets, computer keyboard, couch. remote controller(less common)

reply to post by thecinic


are you kidding me?

a woman cant get pregnant that way seriously .
thats all i gotta say

Originally posted by thecinic
reply to post by hotbakedtater

 

Sperm theft -

The act of stealing a mans sperm without his knowledge.

IE used condem laying around (most common) MEN these are filled with sperm killing things
IE Using your hand as a cup (common)
Bed sheets, computer keyboard, couch. remote controller(less common)

the servial rate of sperm outside the body is only a hour at the most

reply to post by alysha.angel


Yes!!!

A women could take a used condom with sperm in it (make sure you buy him the ones without spermicide)
put the turkey baster in the used condom soak up the contents, insert in baby making factory....

I mean i'm no scientist (i doubt you are either), but i'm sure in theory it would work well....

reply to post by thecinic

This isn't the only case in which a sperm donor has been ordered to pay support, nor is it the only case involving nontraditional ways of getting pregnant. First, there are the stolen sperm cases. For example, in a New York case, Deon Francois banked some frozen sperm at an NYU lab while he and his wife were trying to get pregnant. They broke up; he moved out, stopped paying the storage fee to NYU, and assumed NYU would discard the sperm. Instead, his estranged wife forged his signature on a release and notarized it with a stolen notary stamp. She used the release to get the sperm from NYU, which hadn't discarded it; got pregnant; and then sought child support in her divorce case. The judge awarded her $150 per week.

www.straightdope.com...

This stuff actually happens. It may seem like a joke or an urban legend, but no...based upon an incremental interpretation of Gomez v. Perez, the CHILD has the right to child support (unless of course the mother doesn't want the child--then it's guaranteed a life of foster care, or possibly no life at all...) To act as though the mother's choice is not the single paramount and deciding factor in all of this is absurd.

If a women is dealing in stolen sperm, and uses the stolen sperm to have a kid, then the man should not be responsible for the child.....

reply to post by thecinic


I would argue that regardless of whether she stole the sperm, lied about birth control, or merely had irresponsible sex, the woman is nonetheless the final arbiter of what happens with her body, and as such has (or should by all that is just and rational) absolute responsibility, financial and otherwise, for the child, if one is born out of wedlock. Especially since no one is suggesting that she be held responsible for a child she doesn't want. It's all about choice. And since the courts only view a "child's right" to child support if she decides to keep it, it is clear that the child's right is superceded by the woman's right to parental choice (not abortion only, mind you), otherwise she could and would be paying child support to foster parents unless the child were lucky enough to be adopted. This doesn't happen. Why? The child is supposedly entitled to support from both parents. That's the line. It's a convenient lie. An institutionalized double-standard and a bait and switch.

reply to post by Jenna


While I see that your trying to be fair here...the reality is both parties deserve the right to choose...or neither should have that right.That is the meaning of equal treatment under the law.
If you deny the right of choice to the man...you should take away the right of choice to the woman.

reply to post by thecinic


Dealing in stolen sperm?
That would make her a sperm jacker....ahem.
Nuff said.

I've dredged up this difficult and painful thread (at least it was for me. God knows I thought I was going to be banned at least two or three times during this thread.) to add in a happier ending.

About a week ago my phone rang. Very long story short - I spoke to my son. He is 21 now and the last time I saw him he was maybe 2-3 years old.

We're going to go out for dinner together sometime after Christmas.

I know this is off-topic but I do ask foregiveness for that trespass as I wanted to turn whatever negativity I expressed in this thread into a positive.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


That is wonderful Heff. I hope one day that you get to enjoy being a grandfather!

My position on this has actually changed, it would have to be on a case by case basis, but right now if two people are irresponsible and have unprotected sex and the woman gets pregnant, then she has the legal option to shirk the responsibility for her actions by having an abortion. If people truly do believe in equality then a man should also have a legal option available to shirk responsibility. Of course he does not have any right to dictate what a woman does with her own body, so the option imo would be for him to not have any financial obligation to the woman and her child...that seems pretty fair to me, and like i said it should be judged on a case by case basis.

I am a woman. And I am a single mother.

And I think that child support should be done away with.

Let me explain.

It is not 'fair' in the sense that men do not have the same reproductive rights as women do. When a woman does not want to be a parent (after a pregnancy), she holds the right to have an abortion or give the child up for adoption, both with no consent from the father.

But when a man does not want to be a parent after a pregnancy, he has NO rights. He is 'forced' into parenthood by the state, and is even jailed if he does not comply.

I'm in college and in my U.S.Congress class, we had to create legislation and have it passed by the class, This was one of the bills I proposed. The women hated me and the men understood. I had to explain that when you deal with legal issues, you must remove your personal pain from the situation and decided what is fair.

Eliminating child support would force women to be more careful with whom they sleep with.

reply to post by ButterCookie


Ending child support would simply shift the burden of support onto the state.

We live in a time/place where this is the mindset. It won't end.

My mom raised me without child support. My father died owing her 25k in arrears (the sum total of his support obligations from my age 6 till 18). She just worked harder and taught me to be more resourceful. She is from a nearly extinct mindset, though.