Sperm donor sued for child support
Options
Comments
-
Fair (He should have to pay)Moral of the story: Don't give your sperm to these hoes.
It literally puts your fate in her hands.
Foolish ? ? . -
Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)i read thru it, and the issue seems to be that this ? did not go thru the proper sperm-donating avenues. he was just jerking off in to a dixie cup and selling it to hoes on craigslist.
if you don't want some ? like this to happen, make sure you only give a chick your sperm in the presence of a doctor
Ahahahaha.
-
Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)Stopitfive wrote: »its a nonsensical and intrusive legal precedent...
why does the government need to force ppl to seek the expertise of a doctor?
they are consenting adults and the contract they wrote up should be honored.
i agree that it's ? up. but i think the courts are more concerned with the potential abuses of things not being done officially. like if they let this slide it could be used as another excuse for folks to get out of paying. and without proper proof, there's a lot of ambiguity that can go into just going of the words of random people
if he had things the proper, legit way, none of this would be happening
i'm also pretty certain that it's illegal to sell body fluids like that.
What about the contract though ? -
Fair (He should have to pay)This is the only thing stopping me from ever doing this. There is actually a french movie about this same subject that came out early this year. I think it's legal in some areas
-
Fair (He should have to pay)Word, you can't just put anything in a contract and have it stand.
-
Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)Stopitfive wrote: »its a nonsensical and intrusive legal precedent...
why does the government need to force ppl to seek the expertise of a doctor?
they are consenting adults and the contract they wrote up should be honored.
i agree that it's ? up. but i think the courts are more concerned with the potential abuses of things not being done officially. like if they let this slide it could be used as another excuse for folks to get out of paying. and without proper proof, there's a lot of ambiguity that can go into just going of the words of random people
if he had things the proper, legit way, none of this would be happening
i'm also pretty certain that it's illegal to sell body fluids like that.
Why is a written agreement not enough?
Corporations have more rights than ppl because ppl don't fight enough.
They just accept decisions of the court as if there isn't a long history of change... -
Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)So the contract doesn't qualify him as a "legal sperm donor". What about the rest of the contract if it (assumingly) signs over guardianship and financial responsibility ?
-
Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)Stopitfive wrote: »Stopitfive wrote: »its a nonsensical and intrusive legal precedent...
why does the government need to force ppl to seek the expertise of a doctor?
they are consenting adults and the contract they wrote up should be honored.
i agree that it's ? up. but i think the courts are more concerned with the potential abuses of things not being done officially. like if they let this slide it could be used as another excuse for folks to get out of paying. and without proper proof, there's a lot of ambiguity that can go into just going of the words of random people
if he had things the proper, legit way, none of this would be happening
i'm also pretty certain that it's illegal to sell body fluids like that.
Why is a written agreement not enough?
Corporations have more rights than ppl because ppl don't fight enough.
They just accept decisions of the court as if there isn't a long history of change...
for the first question, because a doctor wasn't there
the bolded is right tho, they like to see precedents
I don't think that the court has the right to nullify the agreement of these consenting adults because of a rule about doctors being present...
so every written contract has to be negotiated with the consent of some type of "expert"?
that doesn't sound like freedom... -
Fair (He should have to pay)
Since he doesn't qualify as a legal donor, the rest doesn't apply.So the contract doesn't qualify him as a "legal sperm donor". What about the rest of the contract if it (assumingly) signs over guardianship and financial responsibility ?
Otherwise, ? could just draft up their own contracts to ? up the child support system.
Such as:By signing this contract, x_[the hoe in question]_ agrees that she will never attempt to receive or allow herself to receive child support from x_[the ? that is about to smash]_ --under any circumstances--for any potential offspring that results from this intercourse. Both parties also agree that x_[the ? that is about to smash]_ has no paternal obligations or rights to any potential offspring that may result from this intercourse. -
Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)
I think it was some ? they typed up.
But I think people get by with those all the time - like with loans and other ? .
-
Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Since he doesn't qualify as a legal donor, the rest doesn't apply.So the contract doesn't qualify him as a "legal sperm donor". What about the rest of the contract if it (assumingly) signs over guardianship and financial responsibility ?
Otherwise, ? could just draft up their own contracts to ? up the child support system.
Such as:By signing this contract, x_[the hoe in question]_ agrees that she will never attempt to receive or allow herself to receive child support from x_[the ? that is about to smash]_ --under any circumstances--for any potential offspring that results from this intercourse. Both parties also agree that x_[the ? that is about to smash]_ has no paternal obligations or rights to any potential offspring that may result from this intercourse.
why can't they? -
Fair (He should have to pay)
Because that'd be too easy.Stopitfive wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Since he doesn't qualify as a legal donor, the rest doesn't apply.So the contract doesn't qualify him as a "legal sperm donor". What about the rest of the contract if it (assumingly) signs over guardianship and financial responsibility ?
Otherwise, ? could just draft up their own contracts to ? up the child support system.
Such as:By signing this contract, x_[the hoe in question]_ agrees that she will never attempt to receive or allow herself to receive child support from x_[the ? that is about to smash]_ --under any circumstances--for any potential offspring that results from this intercourse. Both parties also agree that x_[the ? that is about to smash]_ has no paternal obligations or rights to any potential offspring that may result from this intercourse.
why can't they? -
Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)Stopitfive wrote: »Stopitfive wrote: »Stopitfive wrote: »its a nonsensical and intrusive legal precedent...
why does the government need to force ppl to seek the expertise of a doctor?
they are consenting adults and the contract they wrote up should be honored.
i agree that it's ? up. but i think the courts are more concerned with the potential abuses of things not being done officially. like if they let this slide it could be used as another excuse for folks to get out of paying. and without proper proof, there's a lot of ambiguity that can go into just going of the words of random people
if he had things the proper, legit way, none of this would be happening
i'm also pretty certain that it's illegal to sell body fluids like that.
Why is a written agreement not enough?
Corporations have more rights than ppl because ppl don't fight enough.
They just accept decisions of the court as if there isn't a long history of change...
for the first question, because a doctor wasn't there
the bolded is right tho, they like to see precedents
I don't think that the court has the right to nullify the agreement of these consenting adults because of a rule about doctors being present...
so every written contract has to be negotiated with the consent of some type of "expert"?
that doesn't sound like freedom...
Eh, I think that's a slippery slope though, fam. For example, gun laws. In order to sell a gun to a private party, the ? has to be done through a gun shop or dealer, or other licensed entity. Those two people can't just write up a contract saying 'I agree to sell you this pistol and I agree to buy it from you for ? amount of dollars' and that just be cool. Like that doesn't negate the law surrounding gun sales. -
Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)mryounggun wrote: »Stopitfive wrote: »Stopitfive wrote: »Stopitfive wrote: »its a nonsensical and intrusive legal precedent...
why does the government need to force ppl to seek the expertise of a doctor?
they are consenting adults and the contract they wrote up should be honored.
i agree that it's ? up. but i think the courts are more concerned with the potential abuses of things not being done officially. like if they let this slide it could be used as another excuse for folks to get out of paying. and without proper proof, there's a lot of ambiguity that can go into just going of the words of random people
if he had things the proper, legit way, none of this would be happening
i'm also pretty certain that it's illegal to sell body fluids like that.
Why is a written agreement not enough?
Corporations have more rights than ppl because ppl don't fight enough.
They just accept decisions of the court as if there isn't a long history of change...
for the first question, because a doctor wasn't there
the bolded is right tho, they like to see precedents
I don't think that the court has the right to nullify the agreement of these consenting adults because of a rule about doctors being present...
so every written contract has to be negotiated with the consent of some type of "expert"?
that doesn't sound like freedom...
Eh, I think that's a slippery slope though, fam. For example, gun laws. In order to sell a gun to a private party, the ? has to be done through a gun shop or dealer, or other licensed entity. Those two people can't just write up a contract saying 'I agree to sell you this pistol and I agree to buy it from you for ? amount of dollars' and that just be cool. Like that doesn't negate the law surrounding gun sales.
my thing is... there seems to b an assumption that "professionals" provide some type of safeguard against harm...
its a ? assumption in some cases...
this sperm transaction is one of those cases... -
Fair (He should have to pay)He's the father and the kid gotta eat. Dont get involved in "donating" your sperm. Goes without saying.
-
Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)Stopitfive wrote: »mryounggun wrote: »Stopitfive wrote: »Stopitfive wrote: »Stopitfive wrote: »its a nonsensical and intrusive legal precedent...
why does the government need to force ppl to seek the expertise of a doctor?
they are consenting adults and the contract they wrote up should be honored.
i agree that it's ? up. but i think the courts are more concerned with the potential abuses of things not being done officially. like if they let this slide it could be used as another excuse for folks to get out of paying. and without proper proof, there's a lot of ambiguity that can go into just going of the words of random people
if he had things the proper, legit way, none of this would be happening
i'm also pretty certain that it's illegal to sell body fluids like that.
Why is a written agreement not enough?
Corporations have more rights than ppl because ppl don't fight enough.
They just accept decisions of the court as if there isn't a long history of change...
for the first question, because a doctor wasn't there
the bolded is right tho, they like to see precedents
I don't think that the court has the right to nullify the agreement of these consenting adults because of a rule about doctors being present...
so every written contract has to be negotiated with the consent of some type of "expert"?
that doesn't sound like freedom...
Eh, I think that's a slippery slope though, fam. For example, gun laws. In order to sell a gun to a private party, the ? has to be done through a gun shop or dealer, or other licensed entity. Those two people can't just write up a contract saying 'I agree to sell you this pistol and I agree to buy it from you for ? amount of dollars' and that just be cool. Like that doesn't negate the law surrounding gun sales.
my thing is... there seems to b an assumption that "professionals" provide some type of safeguard against harm...
its a ? assumption in some cases...
this sperm transaction is one of those cases...
they provide much more of a safeguard than regular people who don't know what they are doing
show me a case where someone asked for support from an official sperm donor. that has never happened because those are legit contracts. and when it is done legit, they don't even know who the actual donor is
this is going to lead to a circular argument...
the legitimacy is gained from the discretion of the court... my point is why should we accept that?
whats funny is that courts ignore the testimony and expertise of professionals all the time...
their is no reason that it should be unlawful for consenting adults to write up an agreement and stick to it, in this instance... -
Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)Stopitfive wrote: »Stopitfive wrote: »mryounggun wrote: »Stopitfive wrote: »Stopitfive wrote: »Stopitfive wrote: »its a nonsensical and intrusive legal precedent...
why does the government need to force ppl to seek the expertise of a doctor?
they are consenting adults and the contract they wrote up should be honored.
i agree that it's ? up. but i think the courts are more concerned with the potential abuses of things not being done officially. like if they let this slide it could be used as another excuse for folks to get out of paying. and without proper proof, there's a lot of ambiguity that can go into just going of the words of random people
if he had things the proper, legit way, none of this would be happening
i'm also pretty certain that it's illegal to sell body fluids like that.
Why is a written agreement not enough?
Corporations have more rights than ppl because ppl don't fight enough.
They just accept decisions of the court as if there isn't a long history of change...
for the first question, because a doctor wasn't there
the bolded is right tho, they like to see precedents
I don't think that the court has the right to nullify the agreement of these consenting adults because of a rule about doctors being present...
so every written contract has to be negotiated with the consent of some type of "expert"?
that doesn't sound like freedom...
Eh, I think that's a slippery slope though, fam. For example, gun laws. In order to sell a gun to a private party, the ? has to be done through a gun shop or dealer, or other licensed entity. Those two people can't just write up a contract saying 'I agree to sell you this pistol and I agree to buy it from you for ? amount of dollars' and that just be cool. Like that doesn't negate the law surrounding gun sales.
my thing is... there seems to b an assumption that "professionals" provide some type of safeguard against harm...
its a ? assumption in some cases...
this sperm transaction is one of those cases...
they provide much more of a safeguard than regular people who don't know what they are doing
show me a case where someone asked for support from an official sperm donor. that has never happened because those are legit contracts. and when it is done legit, they don't even know who the actual donor is
this is going to lead to a circular argument...
the legitimacy is gained from the discretion of the court... my point is why should we accept that?
whats funny is that courts ignore the testimony and expertise of professionals all the time...
their is no reason that it should be unlawful for consenting adults to write up an agreement and stick to it, in this instance...
Exactly.
What makes one contract being drawn up legal and another illegal ?
Even if you argue that the contract disqualifies him as a legal sperm donor, how do you disqualify a contract that says something like "I assume all financial responsibility for this baby...." ? ? ain't grown enough to make that decision ?
Or is there something in the law that explicitly says people can't draw up their own contracts on these matters.
Seems like some people don't even want to ask the question. -
Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)ok just read the article.. first off its the state NOT the women coming after him. second.. i feel he SHOULDNT have any obligations for this kid... but cmon man.. if ur giving out ur ? sperm bruh u HAVE to do it by the book
doing that would ENSURE this exact situation wouldnt happen. The state dont give a ? about that contract like @Kai said u have to go through the proper channels.. i feel for the guy, but then again not really..you giving away your sperm (even with a contract) without a doctor involved=knocking a chick up the ol fashioned way and getting put in CHSP in the states eyes.. not saying its right, but its what it is -
Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)numbaz...80's baby wrote: »Stopitfive
Everybody knows that the law is ? . Everyone is just saying that ppl need to do a better job of covering their tracks. Dude is a ? for not making sure that contract was legit.
the reason why its "illegitimate" is ? ... it doesn't have to be that way... -
? bro
-
Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)foul as ? ..
however who the ? goes on Craigslist like: hmmm need some $, let's see if there's any classy ladies buying sperm on Craigslist. -
Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)bumping
-
?
i can never eat Döner again -
? aint ?
-
Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)My question is why didn't they go to the courts so he could give up all legal rights to the child and the lesbian partner could legally adopt the child?
