Oz ,'Him'
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
In a few more years it should be possible to fertilize an egg with DNA taken from a cell other than a germ (i.e. sperm) cell . That would imply that any DNA a guy leaves around (skin, hair, saliva) could be used to turn him into a "father."
That will open up this controversy a bit. I mean, he is the father, right?
In a few more years it should be possible to fertilize an egg with DNA taken from a cell other than a germ (i.e. sperm) cell . That would imply that any DNA a guy leaves around (skin, hair, saliva) could be used to turn him into a "father."
Heck, with that sort of technology, the cells anyone leaves around could turn him or her into a "father".
Guess I'd better get my dandruff under control if I want to keep my blissfully childfree lifestyle.
That will open up this controversy a bit. I mean, he is the father, right?
No, Rick, I think that is the first step towards our engineering men out of the species entirely.
Curses! You made me expose our evil plan before its time!
That will open up this controversy a bit. I mean, he is the father, right?
Looks like the jobs of the people at 1-800-whosthedad just got a bit more complicated. Society is going to need some indication of consent, not just yup, that's his/her dna.
Watch for CSI: Conception starring Dennis Franz, coming soon to a skanky channel near you! (Has to be on FOX, right?)
Nutty, if you have intent of getting rid of men, we're going to need to throw down. In a squash court, if you insist.
I got these links from P-Cs friends blog:
.html
Windows XP
turn him or her into a "father".
Rick, I think that is the first step towards our engineering men out of the species entirely.
Yes, they've done this already with the so-called 'lesbian mice.' It does make men irrelevant, at least for reproductive purposes.
What you don't hear mentioned is that it would be possible to two men to be the genetic parents, as long as you had a surrogate mother to go through the pregnancy.
Edit: and contribute an egg and some mitochondrial DNA.
Nutty, if you have intent of getting rid of men, we're going to need to throw down. In a squash court, if you insist.
Why do you think Larry Summers at Harvard is trying so hard to keep women outta the sciences?? Because she who wields the pipette wins the war.
Nutty, if you have intent of getting rid of men, we're going to need to throw down. In a squash court, if you insist.
Fight the power, ita!
Nutty, you're going full-on Dworkin on me here.
Why should the man be liable for the support of a child?
The two parents are responsible for the child, because it is their child. The same is true with children who were conceived because someone lied about contraception, or suffered contraceptive failure, or who opted for a sterility procedure which did not work. Not wanting, not planning for, and not intending conception, does not relieve parents of their responsibility for their living child.
I still don't see why the child should suffer.
She's a doctor. The child's not at risk of growing up poor. S/he's at risk of having a batshit crazy mother with no sense of ethics, but s/he won't starve.Suffer was a poor word choice, I agree. Why does the child lose rights to parental support because of the action of the mother? What grounds are there for that?
I don't see how any argument can be made that sperm ejaculated into a condom has been "given" to the other party to do with as s/he chooses. The whole point of a condom is to prevent that kind of transfer of ownership.
I still haven't seen mention of a condom. Regardless, there are people who have conceived after undergoing sterility procedures. Their intent and desire, and the acts they took to prevent conception did not relieve them of responsibility for a child unintentionally conceived.
I am not against his suit for damages. And if what he alleges she did can be proven to be true, maybe he'll collect more than he'll ever have to pay in child support. Whether or not he ought to be entitled to damages is a separate issue from whether or not the child is entitled to support.
Why would his being wronged relieve him of parental responsibility when being wronged does not relieve other people of that responsibility?