Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Warning: the following is an absurd example, but then again so is the entire situation.

A man and a woman wants to have children, but for one reason or another hasn't managed to concieve naturally. They decide to go for artificial insemination and for the use of a surrogate mother. The man is a qualified medical expert in the field, and so extracts egg cells from his partner. Before the egg has been inseminated and planted in the surrogate, the two break up. The man decides to go ahead with the process anyway and 9 months later a baby's born. Do we ask the mother to pay child support?

I believe in such circumstances the prospective father would not be able to go ahead without the permission of the ex-wife. Not under British law, anyway.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What do you suggest doing with the child?

She could swallow it...

 Cheesecat wrote:
Why not make a new law that the biological father doesn't have to support the child if the biological mother is artificially inseminated?

Why not just make a law stating that a man is never to be held accountable for the results of sexual activity because men have no self control. Some of you have to be trolling this thread.

Honestly how has this gone past "If you don't want to support your children don't have sex?" Yes, oral sex is sex, and yes anytime you have sexual activity of any sort (where a man and woman are involved duh) you run the risk of pregnancy.

Woman is on the pill and has a cold. She takes antibiotics and the effectiveness of her birth control is decreased. She gets pregnant.

"She didn't tell me she was on an antibiotic. It's fraud. Throw her in jail. I'm not paying for the child!"

Woman has a gastrointestinal infection making her birth control less effective. She gets pregnant.

"She didn't tell me she had the runs last week. It's fraud. Throw her in jail. I'm not paying for the child."

Man thinks he doesn't have a small penis. Doesn't buy the right size of condom and it slips off causing her to get pregnant.

"It's fraud. He acted like he had a bigger penis. Throw him in jail!"

Man ejaculates prematurely before he could pull out.

"He told me he would last longer than 30 seocnds! Fraud. Throw him in jail."

"He was supposed to ejaculate on my breasts, but he spilled it on my thighs. Now I'm pregnant!"

"Fraud. Throw him in jail:"

If your only solution to a law that is unfortunate for the man that couldn't keep it in his pants but exists for the protection of the child is to introduce laws that are pants-on-head stupid and ripe for abuse, then you better leave things alone...

The victim of this scenario is the child who is the only unwilling participant in this whole situation. The couple was engaged in consensual sexual activity now if she some how with out his permission forcefully harvested his sperm to produce this child than there is precedent that he should not pay child support but he wasn't. He did technically give that women his sperm willingly i climaxing in someones mouth is not willingly giving them sperm I do not know what is. In this situation the child needs support event though it looks like both parents are wealthy, I would ask the court that the money be placed in a trust fund to pay for the child education that the mother can not have access to this could be used to save up money for when he goes to college or used to send the child to a private school. This would already lift a huge financial burden from the mother allowing her to focus on other aspects of the child's care, and would make sure that the money the father is providing is not being abused by the mother. That to me is the best outcome of this scenario I would also have the mother receive counselling so that she knows what she did is wrong and hopefully she would not do it again.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What do you suggest doing with the child?

She could swallow it...

OMG , thanks so much for making my keyboard covered in tea.

This whole thread reads like a really bad Maury episode.

There needs to a word, probably borrowed from German, for the realization that a flawed system is actually the best possible system.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Why not make a new law that the biological father doesn't have to support the child if the biological mother is artificially inseminated?

Why not just make a law stating that a man is never to be held accountable for the results of sexual activity because men have no self control. Some of you have to be trolling this thread.

Honestly how has this gone past "If you don't want to support your children don't have sex?" Yes, oral sex is sex, and yes anytime you have sexual activity of any sort (where a man and woman are involved duh) you run the risk of pregnancy.

I think men should be accountable if they've had actual sexual intercourse with a woman, but a sperm bank is a service to help other women to have a kid it's not designed with the purpose of financially supporting your child.

 Polonius wrote:
There needs to a word, probably borrowed from German, for the realization that a flawed system is actually the best possible system.

If you'll forgive the portmanlieu, I really like systemfreude.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Why not make a new law that the biological father doesn't have to support the child if the biological mother is artificially inseminated?

Why not just make a law stating that a man is never to be held accountable for the results of sexual activity because men have no self control. Some of you have to be trolling this thread.

Honestly how has this gone past "If you don't want to support your children don't have sex?" Yes, oral sex is sex, and yes anytime you have sexual activity of any sort (where a man and woman are involved duh) you run the risk of pregnancy.

I think men should be accountable if they've had actual sexual intercourse with a woman, but a sperm bank is a service to help other women to have a kid it's not designed with the purpose of financially supporting your child.

Most jurisdictions have exceptions for sperm donors in situations like that. But not all artificial insemination is the result of a sperm donors. Most is actually done between couples with fertility problems.

 Polonius wrote:
There needs to a word, probably borrowed from German, for the realization that a flawed system is actually the best possible system.

Well, in economics we call it capitalism.

 Polonius wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Why not make a new law that the biological father doesn't have to support the child if the biological mother is artificially inseminated?

Why not just make a law stating that a man is never to be held accountable for the results of sexual activity because men have no self control. Some of you have to be trolling this thread.

Honestly how has this gone past "If you don't want to support your children don't have sex?" Yes, oral sex is sex, and yes anytime you have sexual activity of any sort (where a man and woman are involved duh) you run the risk of pregnancy.

I think men should be accountable if they've had actual sexual intercourse with a woman, but a sperm bank is a service to help other women to have a kid it's not designed with the purpose of financially supporting your child.

Most jurisdictions have exceptions for sperm donors in situations like that. But not all artificial insemination is the result of a sperm donors. Most is actually done between couples with fertility problems.

Oh, OK wasn't aware of that I stand corrected then. What other methods are used for artificial insemination outside of sperm banks?

Group sex

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Why not make a new law that the biological father doesn't have to support the child if the biological mother is artificially inseminated?

Why not just make a law stating that a man is never to be held accountable for the results of sexual activity because men have no self control. Some of you have to be trolling this thread.

Honestly how has this gone past "If you don't want to support your children don't have sex?" Yes, oral sex is sex, and yes anytime you have sexual activity of any sort (where a man and woman are involved duh) you run the risk of pregnancy.

I think men should be accountable if they've had actual sexual intercourse with a woman, but a sperm bank is a service to help other women to have a kid it's not designed with the purpose of financially supporting your child.

Most jurisdictions have exceptions for sperm donors in situations like that. But not all artificial insemination is the result of a sperm donors. Most is actually done between couples with fertility problems.

Oh, OK wasn't aware of that I stand corrected then. What other methods are used for artificial insemination outside of sperm banks?

My lesbian cousin got a friend of theirs to ejaculate in a cup and then they used a turkey-baster to inseminate her.

Bullockist wrote:
Group sex

Go on...

 Cheesecat wrote:

Oh, OK wasn't aware of that I stand corrected then. What other methods are used for artificial insemination outside of sperm banks?

Like I said, for fertiliity treatments.

Quite frankly, the whole thing is a non-issue.

How would the man even prove that his sperm was secreted away after receiving oral sex? Did he have witnesses? It appears that before the trial, the woman claimed that the child was conceived the usual way. What reason do we have to doubt her?

This is all just a mental exercise in what *would* be fair if such a thing as "sperm-theft" was provable.

 d-usa wrote:

If your only solution to a law that is unfortunate for the man that couldn't keep it in his pants but exists for the protection of the child is to introduce laws that are pants-on-head stupid and ripe for abuse, then you better leave things alone...

All of these are situations where deception wasn't the but-for cause. Accidents happen, contraceptive failures happen. If you don't buy the right size condom, or it breaks, or you don't wear a condom because you believe her contraception is enough, there isn't deception there, it's an accident, and one where proper contraceptive steps weren't taken (condom in addition to the pill, and the condom functioning correctly). The goal would be to craft a law where, when willful deception is proven to be the but-for cause of the pregnancy, it goes into effect. Simple mistakes wouldn't fall under that.

Edited.

 d-usa wrote:

My lesbian cousin got a friend of theirs to ejaculate in a cup and then they used a turkey-baster to inseminate her.

And they dare say that romance is dead

 Polonius wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

Oh, OK wasn't aware of that I stand corrected then. What other methods are used for artificial insemination outside of sperm banks?

Like I said, for fertiliity treatments.

Misread the last part, sorry.

No worries!

 DogofWar1 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

If your only solution to a law that is unfortunate for the man that couldn't keep it in his pants but exists for the protection of the child is to introduce laws that are pants-on-head stupid and ripe for abuse, then you better leave things alone...

All of these are situations where deception wasn't the but-for cause. Accidents happen, contraceptive failures happen. If you don't buy the right size condom, or it breaks, or you don't wear a condom because you believe her contraception is enough, there isn't deception there, it's an accident, and one where proper contraceptive steps weren't taken (condom in addition to the pill, and the condom functioning correctly). The goal would be to craft a law where, when willful deception is proven to be the but-for cause of the pregnancy, it goes into effect. Simple mistakes wouldn't fall under that.

They were all deception.

The woman didn't share her full medical history with the guy so he had to rely on her saying "I'm on the pill". If she wasn't so deceptive and told him "hey, I had the runs last week" then he could have made the educated decision to double-glove since he knows that diarrhea makes birth control less effective.

The man deceived her by not buying the right size condoms. She figured that his penis was big enough for the condom he purchased, but it wasn't.

The man knew he would blow his load after only 30 seconds. If she would have known that she wouldn't have agreed to the "pull-out" method. But because he deceived her into thinking he would last at least two minutes she agreed to it.

The man knew he didn't have the mental fortitude to pull out early enough to get a couple of strokes in before he aimed for her chest. So when he finally pulled out he was so close to ejaculating that he sprayed on her thigh when he pulled the condom off. Deception.

You see what happens when you try to write stupid vague laws to fix a problem that only exists because men don't think they should keep it in their pants unless they are 100% ready to support a child?

 easysauce wrote:
the lady should be charged with sexual assault,

how come when a man deceitfully circumvents contraception with the intent of causing unwanted pregnancy, its sexual assault,

but when a woman deceitfully circumvents contraception with the intent of causing unwanted pregnancy, she is rewarded with money?

Because impregnating a women against her will is considered doing her bodily harm under section 271(1) of the Criminal Code.

Willful deception D-Usa. Willful deception.

Not knowing the right size condom isn't willful deception, it's a silly mistake. Not telling someone you have a sickness that causes decreased effectiveness of contraception is not a willful omission, it's an unintended one.

Birth control isn't 100% effective anyway, so sick or not further precautions would have needed to have been taken.

Not to mention, you'd have to get above the "proven" part, which means the accusing party would have to demonstrate facts that show beyond a reasonable doubt that a WILLFUL act of deception has occurred. That would be VERY difficult in most cases since a lot of hearsay is involved, and would require most likely some sort of hearsay exception (like the woman telling her friends that she took the used condom and inseminated herself with it, with the friend being called to the stand and the testimony admitted as an admission against interest). In most cases, the person lying would be sufficient to keep the bar below the proven level, which is unfortunate, but the way the hearsay laws work.

 DogofWar1 wrote:

Not to mention, birth control isn't 100% effective anyway, so sick or not further precautions would have needed to have been taken.

Right. If you don't want to get a chick preggers, either don't feth her, or learn to love fething dudes instead.

 DogofWar1 wrote:
Willful deception D-Usa. Willful deception.

Try defending that in court.

Not knowing the right size condom isn't willful deception, it's a silly mistake.

"Your honor, we have the testimony of two girls that have had sex with the defendant who stated that the condom slipped off. The defendant had to have known that his penis is to small for condoms designed for the average US penis. The fact that he produced a box of regular sized condoms shows that he willfully deceived this poor woman into thinking his penis was average sized and that the condom would be effective.

Not telling someone you have a sickness that causes decreased effectiveness of contraception is not a willful omission, it's an unintended one.

"Your honor, the defendant has been on birth control for 2 years. Every month she gets a refill and every month she gets a package insert that informs her that her birth control would be less effective with this particular sickness. The fact is that she had this illness and willfully deceived this poor man by not sharing the facts of her illness so that he could take additional precautions."

Not to mention, birth control isn't 100% effective anyway,

And neither is oral sex, but that hasn't stopped you in this thread.

so sick or not further precautions would have needed to have been taken.

None of which are 100% effective and can result in pregnancy. And all of which could result in court charges for a variety of stupid reasons if the laws you propose were actually on the books.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DogofWar1 wrote:

Not to mention, you'd have to get above the "proven" part, which means the accusing party would have to demonstrate facts that show beyond a reasonable doubt that a WILLFUL act of deception has occurred. That would be VERY difficult in most cases since a lot of hearsay is involved, and would require most likely some sort of hearsay exception (like the woman telling her friends that she took the used condom and inseminated herself with it, with the friend being called to the stand and the testimony admitted as an admission against interest). In most cases, the person lying would be sufficient to keep the bar below the proven level, which is unfortunate, but the way the hearsay laws work.

Well, in that case the woman in the original story goes free and the man is still on the hook because:

"I gave him a blowjob and I swallowed and then he left. But I was so hot and turned on after giving him the blowjob that I decided to masturbate. I licked my fingers to get them moist before going to town and when I did that I must have had some of his sperm still on my lips and accidentally picked it up and when my finger was down there his sperm must have come down there as well. It certainly wasn't willful..."

(edit: also one of the many legitimate reasons why "oral sex doesn't get you pregnant" is a stupid statement and a clear sign that people who say that are not ready to handle the responsibility of fething. )

 Cheesecat wrote:

Oh, OK wasn't aware of that I stand corrected then. What other methods are used for artificial insemination outside of sperm banks?

Apparently spitting things into cups, and inserting later works... did you not read the OP?!

 DogofWar1 wrote:
Not to mention, you'd have to get above the "proven" part, which means the accusing party would have to demonstrate facts that show beyond a reasonable doubt that a WILLFUL act of deception has occurred.

That is not difficult, it is practically impossible. Even if you disregard d-usa's rather compelling examples, where do you get your hearsay witnesses? Friends doing their own friend in at court? Very unlikely without a prior personal conflict between said friends which in turn jeopardises the account. A waiter who overheard the conversation? He might as well be bribed by the father.

What you are proposing may have some merit in theory, but just does not work in practice.

 Frazzled wrote:

Lesson 1: Don't feth crazy.

Hey I already said that!

But listen to the man, anyone who's sacrificing to singlehandedly raise the birth rates in both Japan and Europe back to sustainable levels must be listened to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

By any sane standards, how is he responsible for the child? Sperm is typically deposited in the mouth to avoid pregnancy. It is safe to assume that he had no intention of his gift being used to create a life that would ruin his own. The only morally acceptable and logical conclusion in this scenario is for the child's welfare to be taken over by CPS

Because its half his dna dimbledore. Not quit thinking of ways to be deadbeat dad already.
Sorry but I have real issues with this type of attitude, having raised two kids from who had vermin for a bio father.

agreeing with frazzled, would be equivelent to a chaos space marine and an ultra smurf having a beer together.

Hey I played Zinc (Iron) Warriors and all Demons before there was a Demon list boyo. So lets grow some tentacles and pass the beer!

I'l bring the drinks! Mountain dew or L.a ice?