It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
reply to post by Just Chris
Its a pound a week and yes you're right, as long as your willing to pay that there's nothing else the debt collectors can do except suck it up.
Originally posted by AQuestion
Originally posted by windword
reply to post by AQuestion
You think life is so sacred, yet you think the gift of life is slavery!?
Besides, the man didn't give the couple a person. He gave them a cup of man juice. The chance of actual fertilization was just that, chance. Then the pre-natal care of the mother had everything to do with development of the fetus into a child and the safe and healthy birth of the (wanted) baby.
Dear windword,
You argue that life is not sacred and accuse me of thinking people matter.
Oh, my. I did not say life was slavery, I said trading in humans was slavery, there is a difference. The person I responding to said that he gave the couple a child, I repeated his words, question him on what he gave them. Trading in people for money is slavery, how do you define it?
Except for the fact that this man knew who the recipient of his sperm was, how is this man any different than any of the other 100's of 1,000 of sperm donors? Is donating sperm to barren couple wrong in your world? When the parents of an adoptive child divorces, should the state go after the birth parents? What about in vitro and surrogate mothers?
He said the biological mother’s former partner continues to live near the former family home and sees the girls at weekends – but is not being chased for child support.
Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
The CSA said that if Mr Langridge had used an official sperm donation centre he would not have to pay child support – but informal arrangements are not covered by the law. Mr Langridge argues that the rules should be changed.
Last night the mother of the children said: ‘It’s all being dealt with at the moment and I don’t want to comment.’
Now, if you say that an anonymous sperm donor should NOT be tracked down in the event of a child being left without support, then what makes this case different? You don't really have to answer that, because I think I know the answer. It's because the people involved were gay, and therefore immoral from the get go. They couldn't couldn't conceive naturally and weren't able to partake in legal sperm donation, because of the law at the time, which has since been changed. But your opinion isn't based on legal fairness, it's based on religious bias and projection.
Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by ollncasino
Dear ollncasino,
So basically he wanted to have kids, have other people bring them up and not take any responsibility or even know them, nothing new there. Get women pregnant and leave. How is that a generous action, how is donating sperm to strangers generous, how much was he paid for getting women pregnant? Lets consider all sides of the issue.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by ollncasino
Yet more savagery on the part of the female.
They don't want a relationship with a man
but they're more than happy to use his genetics for the joy of being a mother,
then milk him for money afterwards due to red tape.
F*** that. Seriously, f*** that.
If I was him, I'd fight that racket with every breath in my body.
If you don't want me as a person, then you ain't getting me at all.
My name ain't on the certificate, and my name ain't gonna be on that check.
End of story.
Blessings upon the poor man, he got the short end. Damn government.
Originally posted by Just Chris
Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
reply to post by Just Chris
Its a pound a week and yes you're right, as long as your willing to pay that there's nothing else the debt collectors can do except suck it up.
That's the one, knew it was something daft like that.
Therein lies his solution.
Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by ollncasino
Dear ollncasino,
So basically he wanted to have kids, have other people bring them up and not take any responsibility or even know them, nothing new there. Get women pregnant and leave. How is that a generous action, how is donating sperm to strangers generous, how much was he paid for getting women pregnant? Lets consider all sides of the issue.
Originally posted by ollncasino
Originally posted by fallow the light
The child belongs to the lesbian couple, not the sperm donor.
The sperm donor would not have had the child if the lesbian couple would have never have asked for it.
That is a very good point.
Do people who think the sperm donor has a legal responsibility to support the child also agree that he has a right to fight for custody of the child?
By the same logic, the lesbian partner who has since left the biological mother and apparently has no legal obligation to support the child should consequently have no right to fight for custody?
Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Taupin Desciple
If you want to experiment with an alternative lifestyle, go for it. Just don't bring a kid into your experiment like that. that's pretty f'ed up if you ask me.
Heterosexual couples break up all the time.