Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Balog on October 01, 2009, 03:41:33 PM
-
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/10/01/court_wont_hear_sperm_donor_suit/
Thankfully the judge refused to hear it. Still, unfreaking believable.
-
Stuff like that (even if it doesn't go anywhere) and making donors known rather than anonymous can't be doing much to help the cause.
-
Aren't one required to sign all kinds of paperwork before they release sperm to you? I'd imagine that there's some fine print (or not-so-fine) somewhere about "not seeking child support payments from the donor"?
-
So Jane Doe tells the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that she cannot care for her twin daughters - by voluntarily placing them in foster care - and then wants to go after the sperm donor for child support and genetic information?
Excuuuuuuuuuuuuse me, but if I recall correctly, legal custody now rests with the state, who has the requirement to go after the legal parent(s) of children in foster care to seek payment of support obligations. If I also recall correctly, the laws regarding children born by sperm or egg donation legally have only one parent if the birth mother was not married at the time of delivery, and if she was married then her husband, even if not the genetic father, is the legal father.
Those laws were passed to prevent confusion regarding bastardty and inheritance claims. Those wishing to "share" the experience with the donor may do so if all parties agree to the plan. However, there is nothing that requires the legal parents to allow the donor to have anything to do with the genetic product of their donation. It's a lot cleaner that surrogate pregnancy, where the surrogatye can at the last minute back out of handing over the child and deal with civil suits for years.
As for the "need" for genetic information from the sperm donor in order to address the childrens' medical care, the state can go after that without exposing the sperm donor's identity or placing the identity at risk of later exposure. It seems strange that the state has not seen a need to seek the genetic information but momma, who has neither legal nor physical custody, wants it - along with financial support.
I'm going to go pound my head against the wall. It wil feel a lot better than trying to undersatand what the heck Jane doe is trying to accomplish.
stay safe.
skidmark
-
Aren't one required to sign all kinds of paperwork before they release sperm to you? I'd imagine that there's some fine print (or not-so-fine) somewhere about "not seeking child support payments from the donor"?
As per my post above - we crossed in time - the sperm donor is not the legal parent and therefore has no obligation to provide support. In the specific case at issue, the mother does not have legal or physical custody of the kids, so is not legally entitled to child support from the legally responsible party(ies). If anyone is entitled to seek support from the sperm donor it would be the foster care system - if there was a legal father.
It's not "fine print" - it's the legal definition of who is the responsible party. For all intents and purposes in this case, presuming Jane Doe was not married at the time she delivered the twins, the twins have no legal father.
stay safe.
skidmark
-
Why would someone donate sperm/eggs anyway? There must be money involved somehow. Who screens these doners to find out from which end of the gene pool they are from.....chris3
-
Why would someone donate sperm/eggs anyway? There must be money involved somehow. Who screens these doners to find out from which end of the gene pool they are from.....chris3
I've heard that there's actually pretty good money in it.
That said... no thanks.
-
Why would someone donate sperm/eggs anyway? There must be money involved somehow. Who screens these doners to find out from which end of the gene pool they are from.....chris3
1. There is indeed money involved. Not as much for the guys, but then again, a guy can donate in less than a half hour, it's an outpatient procedure. :laugh: For the ladies it's considerably more difficult requiring hormone shots and a surgical procedure.
2. Screening is done by the donation company. There is considerable effort to make sure they're at the top end of the gene pool - college students are the normal target.
-
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/10/01/court_wont_hear_sperm_donor_suit/
Thankfully the judge refused to hear it. Still, unfreaking believable.
Disgusting. Some people will do anything for a hand out.
-
Disgusting. Some people will do anything for a hand out.
This might seem like an insult, and that's not the intention, but the irony of someone who supports what will in effect be one of the biggest handouts to date (public health care) condemning this, is to say the least, titanic, in scale.
-
This might seem like an insult, and that's not the intention, but the irony of someone who supports what will in effect be one of the biggest handouts to date (public health care) condemning this, is to say the least, titanic, in scale.
It is an enormous fallacy to assume that because someone wants a social safety net they also want to encourage a welfare class.
(Edit: That would be like me saying that because you are pro-gun, you want to encourage gun crime. Does that make sense? The fact that people can abuse a system is not a valid reason to destroy the system. I assume the pro-gun movement can understand that, because the same false argument is used by the anti-gunners all the time.)
-
It is an enormous fallacy to assume that because someone wants a social safety net they also want to encourage a welfare class.
(Edit: That would be like me saying that because you are pro-gun, you want to encourage gun crime. Does that make sense? The fact that people can abuse a system is not a valid reason to destroy the system. I assume the pro-gun movement can understand that, because the same false argument is used by the anti-gunners all the time.)
The difference being guns do not cause violence. Giving out fed.gov money does encourage people to.... take more fed.gov money.
-
It is an enormous fallacy to assume that because someone wants a social safety net they also want to encourage a welfare class.
It is a fallacy to claim that creating a welfare system (or a "social safety net" as you misterm it) does not create welfare users.
Want a safety net that doesn't create a welfare state? Pick up a phone book and flip to "I" for "Insurance".
(Edit: That would be like me saying that because you are pro-gun, you want to encourage gun crime. Does that make sense? The fact that people can abuse a system is not a valid reason to destroy the system. I assume the pro-gun movement can understand that, because the same false argument is used by the anti-gunners all the time.)
Any welfare is an abuse of the system. It is a gross misuse of the government, and it abuses the people who's livelihoods are stolen to fund the welfare scheme.
Edit: I'm not sure what this has to do with child support or sperm donation, so I'll withdraw from this one.
-
Want a safety net that doesn't create a welfare state? Pick up a phone book and flip to "I" for "Insurance".
Or C for Church. Mine gives out help in the form of food and housing to anyone who asks, even if you aren't a member.
-
It is a fallacy to claim that creating a welfare system (or a "social safety net" as you misterm it) does not create welfare users.
Want a safety net that doesn't create a welfare state? Pick up a phone book and flip to "I" for "Insurance".
Any welfare is an abuse of the system. It is a gross misuse of the government, and it abuses the people who's livelihoods are stolen to fund the welfare scheme.
Edit: I'm not sure what this has to do with child support or sperm donation, so I'll withdraw from this one.
Of course it creates welfare abusers. Just like the existence of guns contributes to gun crimes. I think my example is perfectly valid.
I don't like abusers any more than you do. I just don't think you burn a house down because it has a leaky roof.
-
Again, you miss the point. Any welfare is by definition abusive.
-
Again, you miss the point. Any welfare is by definition abusive.
A matter of opinion, of course.
-
A matter of opinion, of course.
Only if you believe in moral relativism. Fed.gov taking money by force to give to people to buy votes appease guilty liberals create a dependent underclass create a "safety net" is theft. "Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family" is still theft, no matter how much you want to rationalize and dance around it.
-
I just don't think you burn a house down because it has a leaky roof.
Welfare abuse goes far beyond a "leaky roof". Think infested by termites, rats, and roaches beyond treatment.
Ever been in the line at the grocery store behind somebody (who looks able bodied and in their 20s) with a cart piled high with name brand food who pulls out a food stamp card (for lack of a better term), pays $5 out of their pocket for the remainder (maybe that much) and then pushes their cart out to a brand new Escalade with rims that cost thousands of dollars?
I have, and I experience it usually every week.
-
Of course it creates welfare abusers. Just like the existence of guns contributes to gun crimes. I think my example is perfectly valid.
I don't like abusers any more than you do. I just don't think you burn a house down because it has a leaky roof.
Why does your "safety net" have to come from government? If you decide you want a safety net, why is it anyone's job but yours to provide it for you?
-
A matter of opinion, of course.
Facts are facts. Taking from one able bodied person to give to another able bodied person is theft. The only difference is that one is smart/dumb, sneaky, and lacking in morals enough to be on the beneficial end of the arrangement. Providing for those who are legitimately disabled and physically or mentally can not provide for themselves is one thing, that at least has a moral leg to stand on.
The problem is that, by and large, welfare and other social programs help a very few who have legitimate reasons for receiving it. Liberals have created an entire underclass dependent on the government dole to the point now that trying to do the right thing and take it away is political suicide. So many receive it or are for those who receive it that the issue can not be touched, and that's just the way the framers of the plan wanted it.
You think we get mad when gun legislation is passed? See what happens in every major city in the country if you wiped out food stamps and welfare for 99% of the people currently receiving it.
-
You think we get mad when gun legislation is passed? See what happens in every major city in the country if you wiped out food stamps and welfare for 99% of the people currently receiving it.
So you're saying we should keep welfare for fear of riots?
-
So you're saying we should keep welfare for fear of riots?
Not at all. I was simply referring to the welfare class and how it is basically untouchable, just as planned.
-
Facts are facts. Taking from one able bodied person to give to another able bodied person is theft. The only difference is that one is smart/dumb, sneaky, and lacking in morals enough to be on the beneficial end of the arrangement. Providing for those who are legitimately disabled and physically or mentally can not provide for themselves is one thing, that at least has a moral leg to stand on.
The problem is that, by and large, welfare and other social programs help a very few who have legitimate reasons for receiving it. Liberals have created an entire underclass dependent on the government dole to the point now that trying to do the right thing and take it away is political suicide. So many receive it or are for those who receive it that the issue can not be touched, and that's just the way the framers of the plan wanted it.
You think we get mad when gun legislation is passed? See what happens in every major city in the country if you wiped out food stamps and welfare for 99% of the people currently receiving it.
To be honest, that's what I fear will actually kick off the Second Civil War. Because at some point in time, the "silent majority" is gonna get fed up with it enough. We're gonna stand up, flip the welfare class the bird, and cut about 99% of them off. The only ones who will receive it are the TRULY disabled (that'll be a tough one to define), the elderly, and VERY short term assistance for the unemployed. No more serial unemployment, no more pop out a kid every 15 months to make sure you "can't work". And the rioting will start. And once they've burned up their own neighborhoods, they'll try to move out and start burning and looting the rest... Which I suspect will just kick the whole thing into high gear.
-
To be honest, that's what I fear will actually kick off the Second Civil War.
I see I'm not the only one who sees that. Although I don't see the welfare class getting cut off, I think a complete collapse of the economy and the gov'ts failure to "bring home the bacon" for the welfare class is what's going to set them off.
-
Not at all. I was simply referring to the welfare class and how it is basically untouchable, just as planned.
Most of them don't vote though. Other people, who benefit more, should also have a finger pointed at them.
-
Most of them don't vote though. Other people, who benefit more, should also have a finger pointed at them.
The hell they don't. Or do you think it was honest working Americans groups like Acorn get out and push into the polls every election?
-
Most of them don't vote thoughOther people, who benefit more, should also have a finger pointed at them.
You're wrong. They vote alright. And only for people with a -D next to their name.
-
The hell they don't. Or do you think it was honest working Americans groups like Acorn get out and push into the polls every election?
Men with an income of below $15,000 a year represent only 6% of the voting population.
Here's an interesting breakdown by voting group and income:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historycentral.com%2Felections%2F12008%2Fexit%2Fincome.jpg&hash=83d4174e3961dc1bfe7a2b5e33e5ee67baa82e5d)
-
Looking at that chart, my only thought is:
What's wrong with the people in the $75K-100K group!?
All the rest of them I can understand, but that one has me curious.
-
Looking at that chart, my only thought is:
What's wrong with the people in the $75K-100K group!?
All the rest of them I can understand, but that one has me curious.
I suggest you read Ludwig von Mises' "Anti-Capitalist Mentality". It is a very good explanation about the thought process that gets professionals - engineers, doctors, intellectuals, college professors, journalists - to embrace socialism. I believe a lot of these people fit in that income bracket.
-
I suggest you read Ludwig von Mises' "Anti-Capitalist Mentality". It is a very good explanation about the thought process that gets professionals - engineers, doctors, intellectuals, college professors, journalists - to embrace socialism. I believe a lot of these people fit in that income bracket.
More than that, it would be the younger individuals in those professions, I would guess.
My assumption was that 50-75 represented most salaried and blue collar workers as they have gained seniority (and, obviously, age).
75-100 is mainly those who are starting out in the "professional" category.
100-150 would be professionals with more age and small business owners.
150-200 would be more business owners and those who deal with the rules the government has created.
200K+ are those who have "made it" and now feel guilty.