stockticker
|
posted on December 9, 2001 07:49:17 PM
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011209/od/life_sweden_sperm_dc_2.html
|
hjw
|
posted on December 9, 2001 08:40:30 PM
Sperm doners waive future parental rights. They are advised not to visit or develop a relationship with the child so why should they be required to pay child support to a woman who has never been their wife or to a child that is unknown to them. They simply sired a baby. In this country, I don't believe that doners would be considered fathers, legally.
I suspect that this doner will win the appeal.
Helen
[ edited by hjw on Dec 9, 2001 08:43 PM ]
|
mybiddness
|
posted on December 9, 2001 08:45:09 PM
A former neighbor of ours swore that he had proven in the courts that he wasn't the father of a boy that he had paid child support for for several years. The judge made him continue with the child support in spite of the DNA evidence. I can't remember the specifics except that they said he had already set a precedence by providing support. Last I heard he was still paying. It's only a matter of time before someone in the states tries to collect from a sperm doner too.
Not paranoid anywhere else but here!
|
stockticker
|
posted on December 9, 2001 08:47:38 PM
What about the child's rights, Helen? What if something happened to the mother? Would it be unfair for the child (or society) to expect support from the person who sired him/her.
Irene
|
hjw
|
posted on December 9, 2001 09:07:07 PM
As I understand the situation, the man goes to a sperm bank and donates sperm without knowing who may use this sperm. In that case, I don't think that he is more responsible than the local community to support the child. Usually there is a contract drawn up by the sperm bank which specifies that he should not see or establish a relationship with the child...especially in the case of a lesbian couple.
So, I could be wrong but this is my understanding.
Maybe someone here has more info on the legal ramifications of sperm donation.
Helen
|
antiquary
|
posted on December 10, 2001 11:13:27 AM
I searched a little for more details on this story and though I didn't find any, I did discover that Sweeden enacted a law in 1985 that requires that all sperm donors must be identified and that children be told who their biological fathers were. The context was in a story reporting that follow-up surveys revealed that some children were not being informed. This law was probably enacted in the interests of the rights of the child, as stockticker mentions, though the article indicates that Swedish law excludes any paternal responsibilities being placed on the donors.
I remember hearing or reading about a case similar to the one that mybiddness mentions, and I know that in custody suits there have been disparate rulings based upon questions of paternity versus nurturing. In the custody suits, I can understand how rulings might vary according to what is perceived to be in the best interests of the child; the child support case, though, seems different to be. I don't think that the step parent should be held responsible unless he or she has adopted the children.
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on December 10, 2001 12:09:30 PM
Just by donating to a sperm bank a man shows his willingness to procreate. If he goes there knowing full well his actions will cause a human being to be created then he~ not I ~should be responsible for that child until it is grown.It's not like they don't know what the stuff is going to be used for.
|
saabsister
|
posted on December 10, 2001 12:16:09 PM
The article doesn't give much info on how the sperm was donated - through a sperm bank? a doctor's office? the old turkey baster method? If he didn't donate through a sperm bank, he may have more of a problem distancing himself from the results.
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on December 10, 2001 12:19:36 PM
What is up with the turkey baster method anyway? Heck, it's not like they [men] don't usually have a perfectly good "baster" just hanging out waiting to be used.
|
saabsister
|
posted on December 10, 2001 12:27:37 PM
The bastee may not have preferred a baster like his.
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on December 10, 2001 12:53:08 PM
You mean it might be too "icky"?
The baster might think the bastee was too icky too I suppose.
|
saabsister
|
posted on December 10, 2001 12:57:34 PM
I don't think I'll ever look at turkey basters in the same way again. Such versatility!
|
antiquary
|
posted on December 10, 2001 02:23:56 PM
I wondered if there were some extenuating circumstances in this case also, like maybe the guy had established and maintained a relation with the children since he was a friend.
|
snowyegret
|
posted on December 10, 2001 04:20:47 PM
What next, a sperm tax?
What about women who donate their eggs? Oy!
You have the right to an informed opinion
-Harlan Ellison
|
lovepotions
|
posted on December 26, 2001 08:40:46 PM
So is there only one donor at this sperm bank?
I thought these things were supposed to be anonymous and the mother can't/won't find out who the donor is among however many donors make deposits at the bank.
http://www.lovepotions.com
|
railfanbob
|
posted on December 27, 2001 07:38:39 AM
Well, after reading that story, I'm glad I never donated any sperm. Hopefully, the Red Cross does have a similar policies about blood donors - I have done that.
|
Borillar
|
posted on December 28, 2001 01:25:00 PM
I think that the Sperm Bank should have to pay. 
|
snowyegret
|
posted on December 28, 2001 02:13:41 PM
Borillar!
You have the right to an informed opinion
-Harlan Ellison
|
hjw
|
posted on December 28, 2001 03:13:13 PM
Borillar is back with the correct answer!!!
Helen
|
Borillar
|
posted on December 30, 2001 12:57:09 AM
I don't know about it being the "correct" answer, but it seems to me that if sperm banks were going to be made finanically responsible it would really be upsetting the applecart. The sperm banks would close down, many doctors and other specialists would be going out of business, childless couples would get angry, a whole lot of people would be stinkin' mad and would yell at our government officials. Our kindly representatives in Congress would quickly do something about protecting donors from this sort of legal harassment. At least, that's how it groks to me.
"Borillar is back ..."
Hmmm ... debateable. While I am still in a time crunch, I do now have some more time to devote to my favorite pastime. However, after reading AW's new guidelines, I'm not sure anyone is able to say anything critical about anything. Certainly, the harassment from one member to another is now gone and good riddance to that nonsense! And I guess I don't really mind AW selling my info around in order to generate enough funds to make this a going venture. However, I can't tell if bashing a politician for their political stance is still acceptable on AW or not. And AW basically says that they can do anything about it that they like up to and including inventing any new rules that they like and if you don't like that, then leave. I'm not sure how that's been played out so far. But all in all, the very worst that they can do is to permenently delete my account and I'd get more work done.
Sorry to take this off-topic.
|
hjw
|
posted on December 30, 2001 07:12:57 AM
I don't see a change of policy that would deny bashing a politician but for many posters here, it has become unacceptable primarily because there is no interest. Posters have left to use other boards or private boards and there are few posters left. Maybe it's just a temporary lull.
In the meantime, I will get some work done.
Have a Happy New Year!
Helen
|
Borillar
|
posted on December 30, 2001 06:50:05 PM
Well, Osma's been good for Bush and I'm not the only one to say it. I feel, that if the Sept 11th attack hadn't happened, Bush would be ready to give his resignation speech about now. That the Republican politicians and Bush have made it almost a tresonable offense to question Bush's leadership, or lack thereof, and so many gullible people gushing out with nationlistic pride, no wonder few people are interested in stirring things up. And the Republicans aren't the only ones being protected. The last five or six airline security measures to come before congress were derailed by the airline lobbists. They made sure that each bill sent to senator Tom Daschel's committee where it was killed. Then the Democrats had a change of political strategy after the attack and advocated greater security measures while many Republicns stayed bought out. And no one seems to give a damn anywhere on the Internet about it.
Maybe I should just start a new thread?
|
railfanbob
|
posted on December 30, 2001 07:18:14 PM
A new thread would be nice - I don't see any connection between this one and George Bush and the Republicans - or were they sperm donors? Just a thought.
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on December 30, 2001 08:02:48 PM
Hi Borillar,we still bash here. It's just not as much fun since most of us left tend to be in agreement so no debates.
There doesn't seem to be any moderation at all. We've had naked pictures, people called names you wouldn't use in RL and all manner of petty bickering! Not one moderation yet. The only thing that disappears is spam for other sites.
Post what you want. There doesn't seem to be a bit of danger.
Look ~ I'll show you: Ross Ross Ross
See? I've said the unmentionable. LOL
|
