The High Court of Australia has handed down a landmark decision that confirmed parentage rights to a man who donated his sperm to a woman who wanted to have a child.

The ruling could impact thousands of couples and single women whose children were conceived with known sperm donors.

http://theconversation.com/can-a-sperm-donor-be-a-legal-parent-in-landmark-decision-the-high-court-says-yes-115553

What issues do people see here that will affect society at large and also sperm donors, parents and children?

Charge the Tossers !

Dear Nathan,

From reading your link this appears to be a
special case where the sperm donor was actively
involved in the child's life and acted as a
parent. He wasn't just someone who donated his
sperm and had no contact. The man in question
did take on a parental role. Therefore the
High Court considered the child's right to both
parents as being paramount and made it's
judgement accordingly.

As the article points out -
this case won't open the
door to anonymous sperm donors who've never seen
or had any real contact with their biological
child.

Although it might make some refuse to have
contact in fear of being sued for any legal
responsibilities including financial support
for their biological children. But correct me
if I'm wrong - I don't think that the
identities of anonymous sperm donors are
allowed to be released. So this should not be
a problem.

Thanks Nathan ,a complex subject, as Foxy said this is a bit different
What however if at some time the mother wants the donor father to pay to support the child
Complex indeed but in the case mentioned I like the verdict

From the point of view of the victims of artificial insemination, I cannot imagine what it would be like to think of dear old dad as some goo in a plastic container. While this 'donor' apparently has real connection with the child, in most cases this is not the case. This instance, however, highlights the conflict and problems caused by me, me, me self-indulgent women who can't, or won't, have children in the normal way. No thought is given to the child's future and mental response to finding that he or she is the product of stud farm practices.

The more humans move away from nature, the more they sink into the ooze of despair, and the more they cost the rest of us who have to foot the bill.

F* hilarious all.
Execute lawyers.

Dan.

ttbn, agree, but as usual there is far more to it and it's never straight forward.
It goes without saying that if you intercourse with nature, it WILL intercourse you back.
Maybe not soon, but almost surely, later.
In one hand it is seen as a blessing that there are sperm donors, in the other, it is argued that if the couple cannot conceive naturally, it is a prima-facie case of a 'possible' problem by one of the aspirants.
I remember decades ago some medical practitioners, according to old newspapers of that time, believed that in some cases it was advisable for the couple to adopt, for fear of putting the newborn at risk at some later stage in life, because the problem, any problem carried by the parents can per chance be passed on to the child.
Hopefully screening today, and medicine in general is more advanced, and such factors, even though may still be prevalent, can be managed and in some cases eliminated.
All the usual social encumbrances still apply whether your in an un-natural or a natural relationship.
Divorce, separation, they all cause problems for the children, but that's OK as long as the selfish maggots get their way.
I single out the female of the species/relationship, because they have been pushing for equality and God knows what other unrealistic and drummed up demands, and in doing so, the records will show that they have become more trouble than they're worth.
This current trend by females is a mess, as are they.
There is no book or rules guiding women, other than the usual boring mantra's.
The men, and I do blame the men for letting this happen.
Once these things finally get to, either an unsalable wall, or a very high cliff, I'd like to see where they think they are going from there.
I can only imagine they will dump, or worse, the very maggots that led them there, without a road map, and come back to us having realised that things weren't that bad after all.
As this article has demonstrated so well.

I wonder how many brothers and sisters are married to each other without knowing
or did they change the rules about keeping the donor secret.

One woman dead every week at the hands of a partner or ex partner, I. think women aren't so wrong about marriage being toxic for them. And society penalizes women who have children. Woman wouldn't walk away from something in droves, if it wasn't an
exploitative situation for them by men and the society at large.

CHERFUL, we can see by your attitude that you have a problem with men.
You are the epitome of the problems facing women today.
You have to exaggerate in a vain attempt at trying to make what is clearly, in this instance, a moot point.
You see you lost me, most of the readers and the point you were attempting to score with by exaggerating and inflating the facts.
Cherful, 52 women murdered per year, really?
Strange, I know there is an un-official media censorship on reporting suicides, or at least it was discouraged, but one woman a week, being murdered?
Really?
WOW, that is extraordinary, you must have some really good sources.
Oh of course these must be the same sources that tell us women are being so hard done by and abused or mis-treated.
Cherful, here's some news, hot off the press you can take back to the sisterhood.
The 'men' of today are mostly neuters, and therefore don't have the 'balls' to do any of the old crimes of yesteryear, so you and the sisterhood can pack up your soapboxes and go back home, in the knowledge that your plight was heard and things have changed to your benefit.
OK?
So let's not use words like exploitative, toxic and penalise any more, we're not interested anymore.
The ones pushing these stupid mantra's are causing an avalanche of unjustified problems to both men and women today.
Let's take the boring ad nauseum mantra that the poor woman does all this punitive house work, as if being punished or working as a slave, for NOTHING!
When hubby comes home at the end of the week with the pay, who do you think gets half?
You have just halved a man's worth and at the same time given yourself equal pay to a man, all in one fell swoop, which, after all is what you all wanted.
Who do you think gets half of everything.
Well knock it off, you are poisoning the younger generation with completely fallacious and wrong beliefs, so tell the sisterhood to just stop it.

Artificial insemination for humans should be banned. So should that irritating, usually inappropriately used word, 'toxic'.

The other irritating buzz word currently used by the mentally challenged is 'amazing'.

Altrav

What planet have you been living on. The number of women killed in domestic violence was all over the news last week. Google it, 63 died in 2018 plus many injured wth broken jaws, arms etc.
Men handing over half their pay to women, I don't think so. Most women I know were given a strict mount of money to buy groceries for family meals and if the price of groceries went up and it cost $20.00 more the woman would face anger from her husband about what she spent it on.

I had an uncle who made his wife write every little thing she bought at the supermarket down on paper so he could stand over her about any thing she shouldn't have bought. He always had money to spend on the horse betting every week though.
This was more the way it was than the men just handing over money. You hear the male side of things, I hear the reality of how it really was from women and my Dad told me how the policeman next door used to belt his wife, but in those days it wasn't talked about and the neighbours minded their own business.

Also I watched a story on Television about the 2,000 women killed a year by their husbands. in Russia.

ttbn
I apologise to you for the word toxic. I often think you have very common sense opinions when I read the posts.

Toxic should only refer to men who really are toxic.
I hesitated before using it but it so aptly described the kind of violent and controlling men I was seeking to describe.

There are many wonderful men, my two grandsons in particular but I could be one-eyed about that. I see as young men how they try so hard to find their path in life and I try to build them up by praising their natural male abilities and strength and give them confidence because I realise the effect that the putting down of men has on them, and also the feminisation of the education system.

Cherful, so now you realise the putting down of men and the 'feminisation' of the education system.
I do not accept unsubstantiated stories and scare mongering.
I refute stories like those you mention as they are sensationalised and in some cases, a 'beat up', for commercial and financial benefit by the relevant media or author.
These cases, if scrutinised usually have been overstated for one reason or another, so they are not ALL relevant or true
I am quoting from fact.
I see now, the basis of your agenda.
I don't know what area or era you lived in but judging by your examples of your experiences and life, I can see you have been affected, and quite badly by your exposure to male dominance and violence.
Never-the-less as much as I can sympathise, I will not allow you to contaminate further, an already, what did you call it? Oh yes, 'toxic' situation.
You are being disingenuous by your attitude and contention by your general broad reference to 'men' generally.
You speak so lovingly about your grandchildren, now I will give YOU a stat, and that is; what if I told you that in fact one of your grandchildren was going to, to some degree, become a woman basher?
After all they are males, and they will grow up to be men.
Now how do you rate your comments and your stats?
By the way, your comments and stats about the female deaths, is a non starter.
I have found you out and I would like a retraction of some kind.
As I said, these things are ALWAYS agenda driven.
Does the title, ADVOCACY GROUP, sound familiar to you?
A gaggle of maggots, with nothing better to do than push a moot point, as you have done with your response/comments.
You see Cherful, as I correctly pointed out neither you nor the article breaks down the various categories or the different circumstances behind the deaths.
You would have us believe they were all caused by men.
You have been called out and debunked so your input is now moot/ irrelevant.

Foxy,

You are mostly right, but now donor children have the right to know the name of their fathers after they turn 18.

The NSW legislation does not consider a sperm donor that has no contact as a parent. However, the moment that the donor:

- financially supports the child and/or
- has regular contact and parenting duties, then the high court will then recognise him as a parent.

SM,

I'm glad that we agree on this one.

CHERFUL,

Welcome back to posting. You've been missed.
And, Thank You for pointing out that as most of
us are aware - and sociological research of the
past decades has revealed an astonishing amount of
family violence - between spouses, between parents
and offspring, and among the offspring themselves.

One source of of the violence may lie in the
dynamics of the family as an intimate environment:
close relationships are likely to involve more
conflict than intimate ones, since there are more
occasions for tensions to arise and more likelihood
that deep emotions will be provoked.

Another source may be outside the family,
for violence is frequently a response to frustration. If the person
affected cannot strike back at the source of the
problem - the arrogance of an employer, say, or the lack
of a job, the aggression may be readily redirected at family
members.

Perhaps most importantly, violence between husband and
wife takes place in a general social context that has
traditionally emphasized male dominance and female
subservience as not only you but many psychologists
and sociologists have pointed out. You have lived
experience - which is of great value.

In any event, the extent of violence in groups whose members
are supposed to love and care for one another is not
easily explained and suggests that the modern family may
sometimes be under greater pressure than it can easily bear.

Trying to understand the problem will help towards finding
answers. Denying it will not solve anything, and only
contribute to making it worse.

Cherful,

Nothing personal. I have a thing about the word 'toxic', having been described on more than one occasion as a "toxic little man" by an unpleasant poster whom I longer take any notice of.

Toxic relates to a any poison; any poisonous substance. Not an appropriate word for people, no matter how bad we think they are.

I appreciate your remarks.

CHERFUL,

Sometimes the word "toxic" is used as a last resort
out of sheer frustration -
to describe people on this forum who persist in
personal insults and denigration of those whose views
don't agree with theirs.

We've
all experienced that, it's par for the course on a
public forum such as this one. Accusations of
Marxistm, neo-Communism, Lefties, Feminazis,
Selfish maggots,
and other nasties are bandied about. And this from people
who have very rigid, stereotypical views.
However, of course using words like "toxic only happens
when the right buttons are pushed out
of sheer frustration. And they are terms that we don't
generally use in our conversations with normal people.

So chin up. If you used that term - the chances are
they brought it onto themselves.

Most of the time we just walk away.

As one of the 'toxic' ones referred to by 'she who knows it all and must not be challenged or corrected', I can speak with authority as one who regularly scrutinizes comments, well only the more interesting topics.
I can tell you, that when you see the same people, twisting and bending the facts to suite their view on the topic, over and over again, it wears you down, and so it is that one must up the ante and increase the vitriol and intensify the delivery so as to make it clear to such people that we will not accept an untruth or a misrepresentation of the truth by simply quoting facts.
It is an old ploy, to promote the facts as the truth.
When being sworn in, in court, you are asked to 'tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth'.
Not to 'tell the whole facts and nothing but the facts'.
You see the facts can be manipulated, to deliver a pre-concieved outcome.
The truth cannot.
Cherful has attempted the very thing I describe.
Firstly she contends that the problem with femecide is men and so on and so forth.
I then looked into her assertions and found she had been 'bending the truth' by promoting or quoting an advocacy group, not official figures, surveys or research.
No, some bleeding heart movement.
And so again, the facts did not support the premise or the 'truth'.
And you wonder why we get fed up and go 'toxic'.
Here's a suggestion, promote the truth, or if it does not suite your agenda, say nothing at all, then I have nothing to correct and no-one to berate or abuse for attempting to lie and seriously mis-represent something

ALTRAV,

If you want to be taken seriously you need to give us
something of substance to back your claims. So far
as others have pointed out - all you do is rant.
That doesn't work on discussion forums and subsequently
you get ignored.

You accuse CHERFUL of twisting and bending facts. Of
having a problem with men. That is incorrect.
She even made the statement that
"There are many wonderful men."
The problems that were being discussed were men who
committed violence and this does not apply to all men.
The same as - not all women are "selfish maggots."

You can't speak with any authority when all you do is
make sweeping generalisations, especially about people you
don't know.

Unlike you, I do not claim to "know it all."
Far from it. That's why I do my research and provide
evidence to back my claims. If you want to challenge
what I provide or what CHERFUL says - you have to provide
evidence to prove your claims not just claim that you
own the "truth."

I fully accept being challenged and corrected when its
evidence based that disproves the evidence that I am
providing. You don't provide any evidence. You are not
arguing on a logical well reasoned platform, but an
immature, emotional one.

Nobody supports or likes an illogical, abusive debater.

As Steele told you - you need to lift your game.
Your rants are not impressing anyone apart from
your kindred spirits on this forum.

Foxy and Co, it is YOU who needs to heed your own advice.
You continually commit the very offenses you blame me of.
You don't quote things and let the reader decide at all, and you know it.
You quote things as submissions to bolster your case.
Your submissions, links and references, all of them are not intended for us to 'make up our own mind', they're all structured in such a way as to convey a meaning or a message, YOUR message.
I, on the other hand, regularly submit alternate views for consideration and most of the time they are truth based not just fact based.
'Twisting' words or meanings is what you and others do who 'cherry pick' to attempt to win your point.
Like Cherful's attempt at conveying the message that over 50 women a year die at the hands of men.
Even you can't defend her accusations when her whole submission was peppered with words like men and males as the source of all these deaths, and to seal her fate she goes on to give examples as to some 'bad men' in her life.
So don't patronise us here on OLO by attempting to virtue signal or shame, because we know that you know exactly what is being said and implied.
Don't try to deflect by fruitlessly accusing me of the things YOU and your mates are guilty of, expecting sympathy and backing.
You're alone on this one.
How many times do I have to say it, I am a pragmatist, a pessimist, an optimist, and, a realist with an objective view on things.
You on the other hand are an optimist, with a subjective view on 'everything'.
In other words, you cannot be taken seriously, you don't just accept all the findings, you keep looking until you find something that will help your agenda, stance or opinion, ie;cherry pick.
BTW, do stop trying to 'catch me out', it's boorish and a waste of time, I also don't think you are comfortable being this way, it does not sit well with your type of 'persona'.

ALTRAV,

CHERFUL was giving actual statistics that are
part and parcel of the problem that exists in our society
regarding violence against women.

As I stated earlier - you need to disprove
what she said with evidence.

And if you don't like what someone says - provide
evidence to back your claims. Sweeping generalisations,
and your own views don't wash. Of course you're
entitled to have your views. But we're entitled
to disagree with them. We provide evidence for ours.
You need to do the same to be taking seriously.

Foxy, for christ's sake, I am forever providing you with evidence and truths, at the very least by disproving comments and rendering them moot or irrelevant.
You keep ignoring my responses and comments because they refute the comments in question.
You see Foxy, where you don't know about something, just like me or anyone else, you go looking for links to back your subjective and personal views.
I don't because in the main, I don't care.
But what I will NOT stand for or do nothing about is when a wrong is being promoted.
I will not allow distortions or mis-information.
That's not to say that I know the answers, no, it simply means that what has been written is either not entirely correct or a complete fabrication or lie.
I then set about to highlight and debunk the comment/s, thereby not allowing an incorrect view or opinion into the conversation.
You know all this, if you don't then who's comments are you responding to if not mine?
So given that you HAVE read my past comments, we can only conclude that you completely disregard my results and conclusions, because they do not concur with yours.
BTW, I thought by debunking lies it disproved them.
If I am not completely au fait with something I will not presume otherwise, unlike some.
I/we need to question EVERYTHING!
It is she who has chosen to supply a very, tenuous at best, link laughingly authored by an, wait for it, ADVOCACY GROUP!
Even if you both think I'm a moron, fine I'll take it, but let me warn you, I am only one person on OLO, so are you suggesting that everyone else is also stupid enough to not see the flaws in the link?
Read my comments, in response again, and if you still don't get where and why Cherfuls submission is moot, then I rest my case.

ALTRAV,

Your case was "rested" a long time ago.

I'm just trying to be polite.

Foxy, apparently not.

ALTRAV,

I can see it's way beyond your understanding.

Dear ALTRAV,

Wait a second mate, you object to being called toxic, which you plainly are by the way, and then say; "And you wonder why we get fed up and go 'toxic'."

Circular reasoning 101.

"By 2017, the number of calls to Safe Steps had shot up dramatically, along with the severity of abuse women were reporting: counsellors were logging more accounts of strangulation, stalking, sexual assault and threats to kill — all red flags showing that, far from being fixed, domestic violence was actually getting worse.

Women, Ms Gillespie said, were suddenly calling in to say that awareness campaigns were making their abusers more volatile: "Can you get them to stop the ad on TV", they'd beg, "Can you ask them to stop talking about family violence? Because every time he sees that ad he goes nuts."

"In homes across Australia, abusive men — furious that women are getting all the attention while their suffering is ignored — are taking out their humiliated fury on their girlfriends, wives and children."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-23/jess-hill-domestic-violence-cruel-twist-abusive-men/11188842

You mate tick so many of those buttons it is uncanny. The way your language has escalated during your time here is a case in point.

Dear Altrav,

I should say this isn't a comment on your personal situation as I have no idea what it is.

It is a comment on your attitude, your obvious resentment, and your derogatory language. The Metoo movement has got your bile ducts working overtime and this is reflective of one of the salient points of the article.

Steely, I find I am once again being maligned unfairly.
If you would be so kind as to go back to page 2 you will find that Cherful referred to about 'marriage being 'toxic' for women'.
Then ttbn, follows up with his disgust at the use of the word 'toxic', and that it should be banned.
ttbn, again follows up on page 3 with an explanation of 'how HE (not me) has been described as a "toxic little man" on more than one occasion', and Foxy gives her explanation as to why it is justified for them to use the word 'toxic'.
So if you don't mind, you have wrongly accused me of a crime I did not commit.
Steely, are you coming down with Foxys disease?
Now as to my use of the word in my self imposed mocking, in response to Foxy, on page 4, you will find that you may have overreached somewhat, therefore the reference to the 'Foxy disease'.
I will leave you with a double standard quote from Foxy on page 3.
'If I used that term (and many more), chances are they brought it onto themselves'.
So Steely, I hope your going to berate Foxy and Co for THEIR indiscretions.
NO?
Then you have just lost some of your stature here on OLO!

Dear Steele,

Start on page 2, and work your way through, if
you've got the patience for it.

Psychology 101.

Good luck.