Parasites

[Umbrage]

Give them a finger and they chop off your hand...

Germany, February 28, 2011

Two lesbians who had sought through classifieds a sperm donor to have a child now demand him an alimentary fee.

German Klaus Schröder, 47, never imagined that after his well-intentioned action would end in justice with the two women, who had initially promised not to seek any financial compensation for the child.

However, it seems they changed their minds slowly, and even more when Schröder, who had no children, began to behave like a real father, paying the baptism and visiting once a month.

The baby, named David, began to see him as a father figure, and apparently, the women demand him to pay alimony.

Worse, it appears that the law protects women because it establishes that, unless paternity is in question, the father should always take care of your child’s needs. At the same time, women never made the adoption papers, which is why the claim may be legitimate.

http://m24digital.com/en/2011/02/28/lesbian-demand-food-share-to-sperm-donor/

A sperm donor who helped a lesbian couple have two children is now being forced to pay thousands of pounds for their upbringing, he said.

Andy Bathie, 37, agreed to assist Sharon and Terri Arnold - who were united in a religious blessing ceremony - after they assured him he would have no involvement in raising the boy and girl.

But after the couple split up he was tracked down by the Child Support Agency and forced to make regular maintenance payments.

Mr Bathie, a fireman from Enfield, north London, said the financial burden was preventing him from starting his own family.

"These women wanted to be parents and take on all the responsibilities that brings. I would never have agreed to this unless they had been living as a committed family. And now I can't afford to have children with my own wife - it's crippling me financially," he said.

He is now bringing a legal challenge to remove his responsibilities as a parent to the two children in a case believed to be the first of its kind.

Mr Bathie, who pays Ł450 a month in maintenance, cannot afford to employ a solicitor or barrister to take up his case but will approach his local MP, Joan Ryan, in the hope she can highlight his plight in the Commons.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571339/Sperm-donor-pays-maintenance-to-lesbians.html

Lesbian moms seek child support from sperm donor 18 years after the baby was born.

In the late 1980's, a married doctor in Nassau County, New York donated his sperm to a friend and her female partner.

The man included his name on the child's birth certificate, believing it would give the boy "an identity". The donor orally agreed he would not have any rights or benefits in the child's upbringing. However, he regularly sent money, gifts and cards which were signed "Dad" and "Daddy," and enjoyed regular phone chats with the child.

The donor said he had contact with the child from his birth until 1993, when the mothers and son moved to Oregon.

From then the contact dropped considerably.

"He was assured that he would have no responsibility on his part and of course 18 years has elapsed where there hasn't been responsibility," said the man's lawyer, Deborah Kelly of Potrush and Daab in Garden City.

http://www.proudparenting.com/node/1050

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania.- A sperm donor who helped a lesbian couple conceive two children is liable for child support under a state appellate court ruling that a legal expert believes might be the first of its kind in the US.

A Superior Court panel last week ordered a Dauphin County judge to establish how much Carl Frampton Jr would have to pay to the birth mother of the eight-year-old boy and seven-year-old girl.

"I'm unaware of any other state appellate court that has found that a child has, simultaneously, three adults who are financially obligated to the child's support and are also entitled to visitation," said New York Law School professor Arthur Leonard, an expert on sexuality and the law.

Jodilynn Jacob, 33, and Jennifer Lee Shultz-Jacob, 48, moved in together as a couple in 1996, and were granted a civil-union licence in Vermont in 2002. In addition to conceiving the two children with the help of Frampton - a longtime friend of Shultz-Jacob's - Jacob also adopted her brother's two older children, now 12 and 13

But the women's relationship fell apart, and Jacob and the children moved out of their Dillsburg, Pennsylvania, home in February 2006.

Shortly afterward, a court awarded her about $1,000 a month in support from Shultz-Jacob. Shultz-Jacob later lost an effort to have the court force Frampton to contribute support - a decision that the Superior Court overturned April 30.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/sperm-donor-liable-for-child-support/2007/05/10/1178390422888.html

SANTA FE, N.M. —  A court battle over whether a sperm donor should pay a higher rate of child support has ended with a ruling that the man is liable because he has taken an active role in raising the children.

Kevin Zoernig had argued he was not required to pay child support because he is a sperm donor and is protected under the state's Uniform Parentage Act.

But the state Court of Appeals noted in its July 25 opinion that this was not a case involving an anonymous donor or a known donor who provided sperm to a licensed physician under an agreement in which he agreed to have no parental rights.

In this case, Janna Mintz inseminated herself using what the court describes as a "syringe-like implement."

The court said Thursday that the opinion, as a formal published opinion instead of a memorandum opinion, can be cited as a precedent.

Zoernig agreed in 1994 to donate sperm so that Mintz and her partner at the time, Deborah Mrantz, could have a child. After the couple broke up, Zoernig fathered another child for Mintz, again as a sperm donor.

Zoernig, Mintz and Mrantz had entered into an agreement in 1994 in which the female couple would be the child's primary custodians. Zoernig would serve as a male role model but not be financially obligated to support the child.

Mintz and Zoernig entered into a similar agreement for the second child, born in 1997, court records show.

Although Mintz is the children's primary custodian, they stay with Zoernig every other weekend during the school year and half the summer. Zoernig, 50, now is married and has three children with his wife.

In February 2000, Mintz sought child support payments from Zoernig. The parties agreed the following year that Zoernig would pay $250 a month in child support, plus $50 a month toward arrears, according to court documents.

In 2004, Mintz filed a motion to raise those payments, saying her financial situation had changed. A state district judge adopted a new rate of $670 a month.

Zoernig turned to the Court of Appeals, challenging his obligation to provide any support as well as the higher rate, since the children were conceived through artificial insemination.

The appellate court said he must pay support for both children.

The court said he "enjoys the rights of parenthood," and that the agreements entered into prior to conception "that purport to absolve him of his responsibility to pay child support" are not enforceable.

Mintz, who now has a husband, said she is pleased with the ruling.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,395642,00.html

It seems to be a phenomenon. (This ruins all my fantasies about threesomes btw)

[istaros]

Wow, weird. Especially the one about 18 years having passed... On the one hand, there's the obvious prole behavior on the dykes' part. On the other hand, though, the larger problem is that there's a system to encourage breeding without actual parenting in the first place.

[Umbrage]

Indeed. Of course the obvious mistake the donors made is:

1. Helping people outside of the system's guidelines. If people need money they go to a bank, if people need sperm they should go to a spermbank.
2. Keeping an emotional connection with the child(ren) and the lesbian parents. This allows the parasites even more manipulation.
3. Going against the will of Nature in the first place. Degenerates should die out, not reproduce.

First I read the news about the German couple. Because the news was so weird I decided to google it to see if it wasn't a hoax. Turns out it's a phenomenon and it looks like society will always put the parasites in the right. It says a lot about the poor moral state the modernized world is in.

[reasonable]

3. Going against the will of Nature in the first place. Degenerates should die out, not reproduce.

There's no such thing as a will of nature. That's either a piece of superstition or another term for your own moral preferences.

[Umbrage]

There's no such thing as a will of nature. That's either a piece of superstition or another term for your own moral preferences.

So why does the term "unnatural" exist then? Is that also a term for moral preferences? Let's take gravity for instance. On earth things fall down, not up. That's the will of nature right there. But of course if you believe that everything has a right to fall up you're going to disagree with me.

[reasonable]

There's no such thing as a will of nature. That's either a piece of superstition or another term for your own moral preferences.

So why does the term "unnatural" exist then?

Well, for a couple reasons. One is to demarcate between things that are possible and impossible given the natural laws that obtain in our universe. But there's also a use of that term that reduces to a moral judgment, as when people declare that, e.g., homosexuality is unnatural.

Is that also a term for moral preferences?

As I pointed out above, sometimes it is used in that way.

Let's take gravity for instance. On earth things fall down, not up. That's the will of nature right there.

No, that's not the will of nature. Only agents can will things. That's just natural law. As far as I can tell, this term 'will' is introduced in order to subtly ascribe some kind of spooky authority to nature, as though you ought not contradict nature's will. But, of course, if 'nature's will' is interpreted in a non-normative sense, then it makes no sense to rebuke somebody for contradicting nature's will, since they wouldn't be able to contradict it in the first place.

You'd do well to point out how these people have gone against the "will" of nature. If by this term you just mean 'natural law' then presumably they can't go against the will of nature.

But of course if you believe that everything has a right to fall up you're going to disagree with me.

If you mean to suggest that I hold a view like that, then you apparently don't know how folks like me use the term 'right.' A right entails enforceable obligations on the part of moral agents, not inanimate things or nature. So of course I don't think people have a right to fall upwards. If they somehow manage to do so, however, then good for them.

[Umbrage]

There's no such thing as a will of nature. That's either a piece of superstition or another term for your own moral preferences.

So why does the term "unnatural" exist then?

Well, for a couple reasons. One is to demarcate between things that are possible and impossible given the natural laws that obtain in our universe. But there's also a use of that term that reduces to a moral judgment, as when people declare that, e.g., homosexuality is unnatural.

Is that also a term for moral preferences?

As I pointed out above, sometimes it is used in that way.

Let's take gravity for instance. On earth things fall down, not up. That's the will of nature right there.

No, that's not the will of nature. Only agents can will things. That's just natural law. As far as I can tell, this term 'will' is introduced in order to subtly ascribe some kind of spooky authority to nature, as though you ought not contradict nature's will. But, of course, if 'nature's will' is interpreted in a non-normative sense, then it makes no sense to rebuke somebody for contradicting nature's will, since they wouldn't be able to contradict it in the first place.

You'd do well to point out how these people have gone against the "will" of nature. If by this term you just mean 'natural law' then presumably they can't go against the will of nature.

But of course if you believe that everything has a right to fall up you're going to disagree with me.

If you mean to suggest that I hold a view like that, then you apparently don't know how folks like me use the term 'right.' A right entails enforceable obligations on the part of moral agents, not inanimate things or nature. So of course I don't think people have a right to fall upwards. If they somehow manage to do so, however, then good for them.

Do you have anything to say that's on topic? This thread is not about whether homosexuality is natural, in case you didn't notice. Start a separate thread if that topic is so important to you.

[reasonable]

[Do you have anything to say that's on topic? This thread is not about whether homosexuality is natural, in case you didn't notice. Start a separate thread if that topic is so important to you.

Wow! Where did I suggest that I thought this thread was about that??? I mentioned homosexuality to illustrate a point I had made. Do you not understand the difference between bringing something up because it illustrates a point and bringing something up because it directly pertains to the topic at hand?

[Cargést]

Do you not understand the concept of staying on topic?  If you want to rant about homosexuality, go to the appropriate thread or make a new one.

Male + Female = Child.  Child requires Male parent + Female parent to turn out "normal".  Gays shouldn't be given children, because they could never act as parents, only as parent, albeit two of the same parent.  The underlying concept behind these news articles is flawed - these people shouldn't even be given the opportunity to raise children, unless they want to bring in a male "parent" at the same time (and, if they do, they should make that bloody obvious and not attempt to scrounge funds off a man later on in their child's life when their general ineffectuality proves the impossibility of their being able to support the child).

[reasonable]

Do you not understand the concept of staying on topic?  If you want to rant about homosexuality, go to the appropriate thread or make a new one.

You can't seriously be this stupid. The remark about homosexuality was not a rant. It was a simple example intended to help elucidate a point that I made which was on topic. And the only reason I mentioned it again was because that Umbrage fellow didn't get the point. If somebody asked me "Hey, what's all this addition stuff about?" and I replied "Well, you see this apple here? If you have this apple and you have this other apple here, then you have two apples. You see? One and one makes two" and then they replied "Stop talking about fruit. Stay on topic!" that person would be, shall we say, fucking retarded

Male + Female = Child.  Child requires Male parent + Female parent to turn out "normal".

 

Well, I don't know what you mean by "normal" and it's certainly far from clear why anybody needs to be it.

Gays shouldn't be given children, because they could never act as parents, only as parent, albeit two of the same parent.  The underlying concept behind these news articles is flawed - these people shouldn't even be given the opportunity to raise children, unless they want to bring in a male "parent" at the same time

So do these gays go against the "will" of nature or simply a normative standard that you endorse? How does the "will" of nature tell me that kids should have both a mom and a dad and should be "normal"? What's (supposedly) objectionable about these gays being parents is not that they go against the "will" of nature (they can't actually do that anyway) but that their going against the "will" of nature is such that it violates a normative standard that's determined quite apart from simply observing nature. I don't learn anything about the acceptability of an act by being told that it goes against the "will" of nature.

[Umbrage]

Do you not understand the concept of staying on topic?  If you want to rant about homosexuality, go to the appropriate thread or make a new one.

You can't seriously be this stupid. The remark about homosexuality was not a rant. It was a simple example intended to help elucidate a point that I made which was on topic. And the only reason I mentioned it again was because that Umbrage fellow didn't get the point. If somebody asked me "Hey, what's all this addition stuff about?" and I replied "Well, you see this apple here? If you have this apple and you have this other apple here, then you have two apples. You see? One and one makes two" and then they replied "Stop talking about fruit. Stay on topic!" that person would be, shall we say, fucking retarded

Male + Female = Child.  Child requires Male parent + Female parent to turn out "normal".

 

Well, I don't know what you mean by "normal" and it's certainly far from clear why anybody needs to be it.

Gays shouldn't be given children, because they could never act as parents, only as parent, albeit two of the same parent.  The underlying concept behind these news articles is flawed - these people shouldn't even be given the opportunity to raise children, unless they want to bring in a male "parent" at the same time

So do these gays go against the "will" of nature or simply a normative standard that you endorse? How does the "will" of nature tell me that kids should have both a mom and a dad and should be "normal"? What's (supposedly) objectionable about these gays being parents is not that they go against the "will" of nature (they can't actually do that anyway) but that their going against the "will" of nature is such that it violates a normative standard that's determined quite apart from simply observing nature. I don't learn anything about the acceptability of an act by being told that it goes against the "will" of nature.

No, you're acting like "apples are a round fruit but so are oranges, so we can discuss oranges in a thread about apples."

You need to go here:
http://www.anus.com/metal/hall/index.php/topic,11179.0.html
http://www.anus.com/metal/hall/index.php/topic,11161.0.html

This thread is about lesbians getting a sperm donor and then demanding alimony from the donor. The fact that you confuse that with a discussion about homosexuality in itself suggests you subconsciously attribute such behavior to homosexuals. If you really wanted to do gays and lesbians a favor you'd point out cases where heterosexual couples have done the same. But you're just trying to turn this into a discussion about the morality of homosexuality, as you see there are two threads about that already. So please... Stick to the topic of parasitical behavior encouraged by today's society. Whether anybody here thinks homosexuality is morally questionable is only a sidenote to what this discussion is intended to be about.

If this thread was about Darkthrone and somebody says he thinks Fenriz is a faggot that doesn't mean the thread is suddenly about homosexuality either, does it?

[Cargést]

Well, if it were modern Darkthrone, it would have to be about homosexuality.

Take that, Fenriz!  I'm going to buy that man a pint one day.

Also, when the fuck did I say anything about the "will of nature"?  I'm talking about raising children to an acceptable level of maturity and understanding.  I might qualify my earlier statements by saying that most current parents shouldn't have had their children, because they themselves are insufficient.

Strike out gays, morons, and the physically unfit, let the rest have children.  Watch humanity improve.

[scourge]

Gays don't usually have children. They usually have other people's children. Some might say that's creepy, or perhaps historically unnatural.

[reasonable]

No, you're acting like "apples are a round fruit but so are oranges, so we can discuss oranges in a thread about apples."

I really can't see why you would hold that view. You asked me why the term 'unnatural' exists, which I took as a request to show how the term is actually used in ordinary language, that is, what function it performs. I did that very thing and used the 'homosexual' example to elucidate one of the uses that  I described. The example was not intended to bear directly on any issue that was in contention. But, of course, you don't understand that, because you lack a sense for intellectual subtlety (and the really embarrassing thing is that the use of the 'homosexual' example wasn't really that subtle anyway.)

You need to go here:
http://www.anus.com/metal/hall/index.php/topic,11179.0.html
http://www.anus.com/metal/hall/index.php/topic,11161.0.html

Maybe you could tell me exactly why I need to go there? Otherwise, I'm not reading through entire threads that I don't give a shit about.

This thread is about lesbians getting a sperm donor and then demanding alimony from the donor.

Yeah, I've been aware of that the whole time.

The fact that you confuse that with a discussion about homosexuality in itself suggests you subconsciously attribute such behavior to homosexuals.

Yet the whole issue here is whether there was any such confusion. But I already explained at length that there was not. That you continue to make the same mistake is pretty embarrassing for you.

If you really wanted to do gays and lesbians a favor you'd point out cases where heterosexual couples have done the same. But you're just trying to turn this into a discussion about the morality of homosexuality, as you see there are two threads about that already.

But I'm not trying to turn this into a discussion about the morality of homosexuality, as I already explained numerous times. The issue I had concerned your appeal to the "will of nature." Maybe you can explain how your appeal to that concept as some sort of normative guide is not completely vacuous. Oh wait, you're too busy accusing me of changing the topic. Wait...what???

Also, when the fuck did I say anything about the "will of nature"?  

I suppose you didn't. I mistakenly assumed that what I had addressed there was a response to my response to that arrogant retard Umbrage.

[Umbrage]

Stop being such a crybaby. You can't force people to discuss certain things with you. Grow up!