It was a joke, my experience of working in nightclubs is that there are always alot more "donors" than willing banks!
The above statement is illogical because consent to intercourse is NOT the same thing as consent to the use of her body for the next 9 months.
WRONG again! YOU failed to write a coherent sentence that stated what you actually intended. That is YOUR problem, not mine!
In which case WHY are you trying to DERAIL the thread topic which pertains to OWNERSHIP of the SPERM?
It’s interesting to see Conservatives think a person can “own” a million acres of land because a paper says they do but not think a woman owns something inside of and attached to her own body.
tantamount to discarding it, same as spittin on the sidewalk and detectives collecting it for dna sample, no warrant needed cause it was discarded by the perp... once it leaves the sanctuary of your body, you lose rights to it... now i'd love to see a woman use this as defense for not wanting to take responsibility for a kid, after delivery... that'd be interesting indeed...
Besides adoption there are actually centers where women can just leave unwanted babies. This is legal and it falls under what are known as Safe Haven Laws here in the States. https://family.findlaw.com/adoption/safe-haven-laws.html
As society is becoming more bizarre, what about both parties signing a contract to the effect that although he's discharging his sperm, she can't use it for fertilizing her eggs, he does not give permission for that purpose. Then they can decide on contraception or just use the other orifices instead.
yep, but like i said, it would make an interesting case, to claim she isn't legally responsible for the 'item' that left her body on it's own, 'it' wasn't evicted... yes, there's been case law for when a woman discarded the item in the trash, leaving it defensless, but what i'm saying is to argue to not take the item from the hospital and refuse to sign anything based on the fact it's no longer in her body, ergo not responsible, just like spittin on the sidewalk...
the issue is, i'd argue that once he 'discarded' the sperm he lost rights to it, also argue that the woman's uterus was no less a 'trash recepticle' as that of an alleyway dumpster...
The Safe Haven laws were passed in order to stop the practice of abandoning babies in the trash. Your point about refusing to "sign anything" doesn't happen in reality because no one can be forced to sign something if they don't want to. If they were "forced" the signature is null and void under the eyes of the law.
Sure, he owns his sperm. He can demand money from the woman who enjoys the cumshot. But in fact he doesn't, otherwise he won't get her laid. And the female has the right to make him pay for her pregnancy and the children. That's life.
