Captain Capitalism linked earlier this week to an infuriating story in the daily mail.
The astonishing story begins in 1999 when the man was about to have drug treatment for crippling arthritis.
He stored sperm at the Bourn Hall Clinic in Cambridge to ensure that he and his wife, who married in 1979, could have a child if the treatment left him infertile.
In June 2000 the couple decided to divorce and weeks later she visited the clinic and forged his signature, allowing doctors to create embryos from his frozen sperm and her egg.
She gave birth to a girl in June 2001, claiming it was the result of a one-night stand, and a boy in September 2003.
I can’t say for sure, but typically “the couple decided to divorce” means the wife decided to divorce him. But had she left it there the amount of divorce theft she could haul in would have been too limited. Sure she got the house, but in order to be fully true to herself she needed to make him responsible for financing the children she wanted. Most divorcées are slackers and take the easy route. They wait until the youngest child is no longer in diapers and then “discover” that the man they married is unbearable. Hey, I’m a sucker for the classics, but you have to admire trailblazers. I’m guessing the judge on the case was giving her extra points (and pounds) for her creativity:
A judge ruled that a settlement he made after the divorce, in which the woman kept the family home, was unfair because it did not take the two children into account and the man was forced to pay out the cash. He says he has also spent almost £200,000 in legal fees over the years.
The man now has two daughters aged eight and seven with his second wife. He sees his other two children for two days every fortnight.
Yes, how terribly unfair of the man to not take into account that she would forge his signature and make him a father against his will. Give her an extra £100k. That should teach the smug bastard with his I’m so honest and upright that I follow the rules attitude. If there is a bright side to this story, at least the woman learned her lesson:
His ex-wife, now 51, said: ‘I don’t believe I have done anything wrong. It was getting later and later for me and I wanted to have a child. If I had not done it then I would not be blessed with my children. I have no regrets.’
It wasn’t her fault; she was trapped outside of marriage.
This example of an obviously insane judge reminded me of a story I read in the Telegraph a few months ago.
The man from Andalusia in the south of Spain had taken his parents to court demanding a monthly allowance of 400 euros (£355) after they refused to give him anymore money unless he tried to find a job.
Instead the judge at family court number five in Malaga, ruled against the man, who has a degree in law, and told him he must leave his parents’ house within 30 days and learn to stand on his own two feet.
The ruling will send shock waves across Spain where it is not unusual for offspring to remain living with their parents until well into their thirties.
So far, it sounds like a pretty reasonable ruling. But then comes this:
The judge ruled that in this case the man had “sufficient ability to work” and could not expect his parents to support him, although they had taken over the monthly repayments on his car.
He did, however, order them to pay their son 200 euros a month for the next two years “to help with his emancipation”.
This kind of ruling isn’t a one-off for Spain:
In 2007, a 22-year-old from Seville took his parents to court after they refused to up an allowance of 150 euros a month despite the father being out of work and only receiving unemployment benefit of 700 euros a month.
That judge also ruled against the plaintiff but ordered the parents to pay his university tuition fees and provide an extra 150 euros a month for books.
The first story is of course morally outrageous, however, from the point of view of English Law, quite predictable, and I imagine the same applies throughout The United States and Canada. It is this: the State does not, and never has, wanted to be burdened with the cost of the upbringing of Children and thus makes or attempts to make the Father pay. There is nothing new here and the same result would have applied in any earlier century. Clearly in this case he is the father. It is no different in law, than say, a woman claiming to be using Contraceptives when she isn’t, or, where Contraceptives fail (deliberately or otherwise) and a child is born. Whether the Father has remedies against the Laboratory in Negligence (who in turn might join in the ex-wife as a third party) I would not care to say – although you can see the way my thoughts are running. The Father says he has spent Two Hundred Thousand Pounds on Legal Fees. If that is true (and he does not say whether that might include her costs – costs following the event) he must be a VERY wealthy man indeed.
[D: This could get interesting. If someone can steal sperm from a fertility clinic then presumably they can do the same with eggs. Something tells me the judge would discover something new in the law if a woman were victimized in this way though.]
Spain is different.
My prophecy is that in future men will be forced to pay child support to a child determined by a lot (by state), of course because those children will not be theirs they will have not paternal rights :). And if they fail they will be sent to a debtors’ prison and then to a concentration camp.
I beg your pardon, I did not mean “concentration camp” but a work camp. There are some significant differences.
@krakonos: Disagree. I think (and hope) stronger men (blacks & Hispanics in the US, Muslims elsewhere) will take over and simply stop this bulls**t.
[D: This could get interesting. If someone can steal sperm from a fertility clinic then presumably they can do the same with eggs. Something tells me the judge would discover something new in the law if a woman were victimized in this way though.]
There are similar cases, in terms of the legal reasoning at least, for situations where the woman takes the condom under the ruse of disposing of it and instead impregnates herself with it (or, as I think were the facts in one of the cases, retrieved the condom from the wastebasket and impregnated herself with it) — it’s that the sperm, once it leaves the man’s body, ceases to be his “property”. If he orgasms into a condom, for example, and permits the woman to dispose of it, courts have construed this as being “the man gifted the sperm to the woman by not exercising ownership and control over it, and once he did that, she could, of course, dispose of his gift as she wished, because the sperm was now in her ownership and possession”.
In the case of the sperm at the lab, I could see similar reasoning being used — i.e., that the sperm is no longer under his control, so he has no right to complain about its use, as he has “gifted it” to the lab and, in this case, his wife (appears she was still his wife at the time she used the sperm) for her subsequent use. A supporting argument would be that the man had no right to complain because he intentionally deposited the sperm there to be used subsequently by his wife, and the fact that she did this after they decided to separate shouldn’t “harm” him because it was still, in fact, his wife using the sperm, which is what his intention was when he deposited it in the first place. Of course, it would be reasonable for a court to conclude that the decision to divorce acts as an automatic revocation of any such intention to permit the sperm deposited to be subsequently used by the soon to be ex-wife, but as Opus points out, courts will bend over backwards and do all sorts of legal gymnastics to avoid the result of a man not having to pay for a child, and here, since the children are biologically his as well, the case isn’t very strong for the man, I think. Basically it’s an argument that he should be relieved from supporting his own biological children because his wife misappropriated the sperm — it’s not a very strong argument, really, since the kids are actually his.
I think there should be a cause of action for damages against the wife here, however — although that currently isn’t recognized by the courts. It seems very odd that this kind of improper activity shouldn’t give rise to liability on the woman’s part, but again, the case for that stumbles on the fact that these are his biological children, and so the issue of “damages” is weaker, really. I think it’s even a weaker case than the cases where the husband has been cucked and the wife divorces him a few years later, moves in with her lover (who is the kid’s bio dad) and takes the kid with her, and the ex-husband is forced to pay CS to the new bio-dad family because he was “acting in the role of the father and the relationship was established” — at least in those cases, the ex-husband is not the biological father, so he has some kind of a case, although not one that many people sympathize with due to the de facto father relationship he has with the kid, leading to the odd result of the cucked man supporting his ex-wife and the lover who cucked him. No-one seems to have a problem with that, though, really.
Dalrock: I see we are thinking the same way.
Consider these two rather different scenarios:
1. A man is asleep, and is attacked by a group of men on the instructions of a woman who has been stalking him, indeed a court has already ordered her to desist. The woman pays the men (medically skilled) to extract sperm so that she may bear his child. Nine months later she sues him for maintainance for the newly born child. I say on the basis of English Law, that she will succeed in her application.
2. A man – not so young any more, abducts a fertile twenty-eight year old woman with whom he is enamoured. He abducts her to an isolated farmhouse (lent him by a friend) and forces the woman to have sexual intercourse with him. He keeps her there for nine moths and she gives birth. He then takes the child and brings it up and returns to (with the child) to his aging menopausal wife. The young woman after a while returns to her Corprate Cubicle. The man is however penniless and unemployed and living on state benefit. He sues the well off woman (the action financed by the state) for child support. The court says that in the best interests of the child the child should remain with the father (and his aging wife) and orders the woman to pay maintainance (as well as the cost of being looked after whilst being abducted). This latter case is not essentially any different to the one in the Daily Mail.
From the article: “The children asked their mum where they came from and she told them, ‘The freezer’.”
…
Wow, what a bitch. Combine it with her last lines, “I don’t believe I have done anything wrong. It was getting later and later for me and I wanted to have a child.” This is a chick who sees her ex-husband and her children as accessories to her life story, not as people.
Anyway, my confusion here is that the ex-wife claimed the children were the result of a one-night stand until a medical issue came up. The article didn’t explicitly say if it was a one-night stand with the ex-husband or some other guy, but my read is that it was supposed to be some other guy. Whose name is on the birth certificate? If it isn’t the ex-husband, has the judge just ruled against the guy who “isn’t” the father, at least on paper? If there’s another man, how’s he being treated in all of this?
I don’t think any legal scholar could have thought up this situation before reading about it. It’s like the chick impregnating herself out of the wastebasket (I remember that from the Leykis show) – no reasonable human being would imagine such a scenario. They have to make up a legal interpretation on the spot.
@Brendan
If you try hard enough you can “justify” anything.
@flyingsquirrel
Not all men of course, some will be kept to procreate & enslave the rest. It’s all about alphas vs. betas ;).
This is how feminists dream about future.
krakonos says:
June 2, 2011 at 12:22 pm
Yes there are differences. When you win you get to call your stuff work camps.
This seems to be a very lucrative idea for people with access to deposited sperm in the few cases a very wealthy man deposits sperm for some reason. Or a way for a kidnapper of a wealthy man to be sure to get the ransom.
This excites me. It should excite all men. When and if this happens to you, you are faced with a real choice that most men in their life never get.
1. Take your future in your hands and do what is right, regardless of what will happen to you or what the consequences are.
2. Bend over and accept your fate.
Seems most men are choosing #2.
Flyingsquirrel:
It’s not so much about ‘alphas/betas’, it’s about the process of survival of the fittest. A weak, feminisized culture like ours is headed to the scenario that you described in about another 2-3 generations.
That’s one reason why we’ve such an increasing number of American men marrying non-American women. These men instinctively realize that the typical Anglo-American woman is unfit for contributing to cultural survival, and so they seek out women better suited for it. This will likely become the new cultural norm in the same next few generations; meanwhile the Amerobitch will continue breeding with semi- simian males and create plenty of future job security for jailers, social workers, and EMT personnel.
Man, level of entitlement is amazing. *head desk*
Brandon–
Yes I’ve seen that sort of legal reasoning used in analogous cases, but I think it’s outrageous. In the vast majority of these cases the woman could support the kids. If the bio dad neither wanted the kids nor took risks which might foreseeable lead to impregnation, but was rather defrauded by the woman, he shouldn’t have to pay child support=also stealth alimony.
I was under the impression that under Old english common law that the kids where owned by the man if produced in marriage and owned by the women if not produced while married. Who fathered the child was immaterial as far as I know.
Of course today’s laws can be summed up this way: Make the man pay no mater what.
Dalrock, everyone:
http://www.childsupportguidelines.com/articles/art199903.html
And the culture beats on! Here’s an article not directly related to the topic here but certainly related to the recent series of posts here: http://www.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/06/02/marriage.with.issues/index.html?hpt=hp_bn8
When you look at her solutions what you see is female utopia, really:
– separate bedrooms = no sex for you, hubby, but you still get hubby duties
– sabattical = I get to fuck other men, but still keep you on a string
– amortize marriage contracts after a fixed number of years = making serial monogamy the norm (presumably with ex-hub still footing bills going forward)
– divorced cohabitation = again, I get to fuck other men, and hub gets to keep acting like a hub in every way other than sex/romance
– “new monogamy” (i.e., non-monogamy) = I get to cuck my hub with his consent.
I swear you can’t make this stuff up. Anyone who thinks that what the manosphere writes about women is way out there needs to wake the fuck up.
Most appalling true story I’ve read for a long time Dalrock.
The obvious solution would also be to sue the sperm bank as well.
Frightening. With that justice, who needs crime?
Spain has a crippling unemployment rate of 20 % and 40 % among latter generations. I could understand why “children” have to live with their parents for so long. There seems to be no choice. That said, using the law against parents that way is just obnoxious.
javert:
Thanks for bringing that up. Even though I think American’s “real” unemployment rate is close to 20 percent, Spain’s has been in the 30 to 45 percent range for at least a decade or two if I recall correctly. It makes sense for families to stay together given that.
What it really tells me is that our modern economies haven’t solved the problem of full employment or a basic subsidized living wage.
On CNN today…
“Options for Your Mediocre Marriage,” by Pamela Haag, CNN, 2 JUN 11
http://www.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/06/02/marriage.with.issues/index.html
Includes such suggestions as “separate bedrooms,” a “marriage sabbatical” and the “new monogamy.” Stops short of saying “Hey [whip cracks] keep your wife entertained, beta-boy!” or just “It’s cuckold play or she’s done with you, chump!” (one they left out explicitly but seem to imply strongly for today’s dirty-minded– it’s today what swinging/swapping was in the ’70s).
Pingback: I Can Never Be Too Negative Or Angry About Women « Omega Virgin Revolt
Reading this post made my blood boil, how could any judge find against the man here. I’m not one to go to extremes but in this case I would háve no choice. It amazes me to what lengths White Night judges cripple men.
“Anyone who thinks that what the manosphere writes about women is way out there…”
In other words: all the female pedestalizer male bloggers who ever bitched about the Manosphere’s treatment of women. LOL, how true!
“His ex-wife, now 51, said: ‘I don’t believe I have done anything wrong. It was getting later and later for me and I wanted to have a child. If I had not done it then I would not be blessed with my children. I have no regrets.’”
Fatherfucker! Pardon my french but the word really fits!
I have no problems with cohousing in order to support family life, so that everyone is housed and fed and so on. Certainly, families living together is a great thing (or can be). But, the idea of an allowance under such circumstances? and demanding it be increased? and doing so through the court system? To me, that is ridiculous.
150 euros per month is $300. in NZ $, that’s about $330-50. I don’t spend that much money on myself alone in a month. We don’t as a family. We dine in (save once or twice a month — tops), we rarely grab coffees, go to movies or concerts, and we hardly ever buy new clothes. We have one cell phone between us (and no land line). We live very simply and within our means, and well — btw — but well below the income of most people we know. So, we keep it simple, very simple.
I would expect an adult to understand that mommy and daddy are not made of money, particularly if they are living in this economy with such an intense unemployment rate that they have to live with mommy and daddy. And if mommy or daddy is the only one working — and thereby supporting the whole household — I would further assume that these adults would realize that the balance of inflation and daddy’s income is tenuous and challenging, and god forbid daddy loose his income, the whole family is basically really in for some rough times.
So, what kid — in their right mind — would ask for an increase in allowance that is so large? WTF is wrong with these people? At what point do they just go ‘wow, time to pitch in some how’ — and I don’t care how, as it can be done by doing the gardening or handy work around the house or some other something.
I mean, I get cultural differences and everything, truly, but at a certain point, people do realize that if their allowance is increased by X, that the rest of the household suffers by -X?
@Sweet As
I agree that “co-housing” is not bad idea. But that allowance is really strange. In fact the son should “do” something with so much free time. Like he could fix/renovate parents’ house/flat, do household jobs, work in fields if they have any …
With a big family you can share your skills and expenses.
Stephanie Rowland said: “Fatherf*cker! Pardon my french but the word really fits!”
Shades of Alice’s Restaurant… “Group W’s where they put you if you may not be moral enough to join the army after committing your special crime, and there was all kinds of mean nasty ugly looking people on the bench there. Mother rapers. Father stabbers. Father rapers! Father rapers sitting right there on the bench next to me! “
This is the story of what murder suicide are made of. The next couple years are going to be interesting especially if the liberals can win the presidency and get back congress. The US will look and live like a third world country. The violence will be welcome by that time
And another interesting tidbit on the “substrate” that formed Roissy in DC: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-03/-intellectual-meat-market-makes-washington-long-odds-for-women.html
Makes sense to me, having lived in the DC area now for about 16 years.
An adult child should have not legal claim upon his parents, period.
A minor child should have only very limited claims. Court determined and ordered allowances are obscene.
@Brenden,
from your link above:
fertility docs/capita as an indicator of sociopathy
very funny.
Not so much sociopathy as the general trend here to marry quite late. When I was younger, people here were marrying around 30. Now, it seems like the folks who were only a few years behind me are waiting until 36, 38 and older. It isn’t uncommon here at all. I think that it makes sense to tie this together with the higher number of fertility MDs — an interesting correlation to say the least.
Krakanos,
I’m not thinking work camps for men, feminists are more into creating woman-only privileged spaces than dominating all the land. It would be something like the radical LDS compounds, but well furnished collectives run by feminist councils, and only alphas get to live there and betas with a work permit are allowed during the day. A beta who has sex with one of the women is jailed for rape, as this will be defined as inherently non consensual similar to adult-child sex. As children grow up on the collectives tended by beta males, teenage males are expelled if they appear to be developing as betas. Outside the compounds betas can attend polytechnic schools and get male type jobs, with huge percentages autodeducted from their paychecks “for the children” and shamed/jailed if they resist. Alphas will not pay this of course and will do not much work except on their game and physiques, endorsed by the feminist state as necessary to meeting women’s needs. Betas will be assigned children to pay for based on the recommendations of the councils, the most socially dominant women getting the most productive betas. Higher learning in the university sense, outside of polytechnics, will be restricted to collective dwellers and the usual hookup scene will dominate there and the rest of the collectives too. Date rapes committed by compound alphas are largely swept under the rug by the councils, unless the date rapist is lesser alpha/borderline expellable. Polytechnics will be considered inferior to universities and thus betas will be de facto excluded from positions of leadership in business, government, and religion. Leadership training in the universities will consist of PC indoctrination.
It would make a truly great dystopian novel, wish I had the time to write it.
And furthermore …
One of the main jobs of the alphas will of course be security, with all the hallmarks of the police state. They will work hand in hand with the feminist councils acting the role of the courts. Betas jailed for rape will undergo systematic genital mutilation, with the councils tacitly condoning. Rape in practice will be the mechanism the councils use to decide who has sex with whom. Women will be permitted to choose the biological fathers of their children given of course they must choose from among the alphas, and the alpha chosen will theoretically be required to comply. However, most super alphas with girlfriends who are council members will use their connections on the councils to avoid the task with ugly or overweight women (ugly and overweight defined as any girl under an 8 or 9 of course). The councils will hail biofather choice as one of their greatest achievements and a reason why collective life is superior to outside. The educational indoctrination will portray women outside the compound as abused and oppressed and coerce them to join collectives if they are capable of childbearing.
Control of childbearing would be seen by the councils as the key to their survival and power to draw resources from the betas. Thus, the collectives will make every effort to draw and keep women of childbearing age. Heavy economic subsidies will support collective mothers explained of course as being for the good of the children. Betas outside the compound with wives of childbearing age will be targeted with job loss, rape charges, violence from alpha security, etc. to convince the couples to consent to divorce and relocation of the women and children to collectives. One-man-one-woman marriage will anyway be seen as patriarchal, obsolete and more proof of the moral superiority of collective polyamorous life. Once on a collective, women will be indoctrinated about the supposed dangers and hardships of outside life and compelled to stay. Collective leaders will present exaggerated descriptions of the violence against women, discrimination, economic deprivation etc. of outside life.
(I’m just thinking aloud what my dystopia would look like, not guaranteeing any of this will happen.)
The first story would turn out the same in the US.
http://www.supportguidelines.com/articles/art199903.html
IT’S TEN O’CLOCK: DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR SPERM ARE?
TOWARD A STRICT LIABILITY THEORY OF PARENTAGE
Laura Wish Morgan
Executive Editor, Divorce Litigation
…A woman’s fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the use of birth control or the ability to become pregnant, however, has never shielded the father from child support liability….
…What if, however, the man is legally incapable of “intending” to have sexual intercourse because he is underage? Is he still liable for child support? Again, the answer is yes.
In every case that has addressed the issue, the court has held that a man who was underage at the time of the conception of the child, and was therefore a victim of statutory rape, is nonetheless liable for child support….
What’s interesting to me is how traditionalist conservatives basically just don’t want to talk about the “woman forging her way to pregnancy” case. I can’t tell if it is due to their tendency to pedestalize women, or due to technological ignorance of freezing semen, or a dislike of such tech, or what. But they just won’t talk about it. I thought that it would be a slam dunk, that even trad-cons would see for once a case of a woman clearly behaving badly and be willing to criticize her for it, but nope.
And there doesn’t seem to be any uneasiness about a man being ordered to pay support for children (a) he never knew (b) because his ex wife obtained them by fraud. There’s something seriously wrong with the moral compass of traditionalist conservatives, it seems to me. They just cannot seem to find fault with a woman’s actions, no matter how egregiously harmful.
@My Name Is Jim
You have a good plot for a dystopian novel there, you should try to write it. Don’t rush just add some words and scenarios when you feel like it.
You could try to add a lead male character that is a Beta trying to keep his wife or marry his beloved while she is starting to get visited and indoctrinated by one of the women of the compound. You can use all we have learn about herd mentality slowly winning her over.
Not sure what kind of ending would you like, she going to the compound realizing her mistake and trying to scape or she betraying him at the end an falsely accuse him of rape. I guess it depends on the mood you are. Still is a good plot you should try and finish it 🙂
It will be interesting to see the wild contortions the people whining about the kids receiving money will take when the US Elites slit the Social Security and Medicare pigs throat.
I know, I know, “you paid into it”…. by which you mean “you gave money to rich people and let them do whatever they wanted with it… and whatever they wanted turned out to be stealing it”. Now, comes the hard part… not getting the money back… you would never talk back to your betters. I mean shaking down the young’ns for that money.
They probably won’t fight back, that makes them acceptable targets.
I would differ on the judgment:
1) The couple was married for 20 years when they divorced
2) They divorced when she was getting too old to bear children
3) He saved his sperm to have children when married with her
4) He remarried immediately and have children with another (younger?) woman.
This appear a case where the man married a good woman and used her for twenty years to upkeep the house, help with the job and likes. But No Children For Her.
Then he divorce, give her the house for twenty years of service. But she didn’t want share it with cats and dogs or other pets or be impregnated by the first scum available.
Marriage exist because of the children, not other.
As the husband have the right to not be cuckolded (the right to have his children, indeed), the wife have the right to bear children; if the man don’t allow her to have children she have the right to obtain them.
There is an interesting story in the Genesis about Tamar and the children of Judas.
Better to read it and understand it. The right of a woman to have his husband children (or in the case of Tamar, children from a legal substitute) is absolute.
On the other way, the woman married have many duties that, sadly, a large part of them neglect and the husband have no recourse about this. But, in this case, I see the husband neglecting more of his duties than the wife.
^
It’s one thing for her to decide to use his sperm to have children. It’s a completely different level of wrong to force him to support them when he had no choice in the matter.
If the wife so wanted children and the husband ‘refused’ to give them to her, she could have divorced him earlier with enough time to go find a new man to impregnate her. She didn’t choose that.
There are two people in a marriage and two acquiescing with the lack of child-bearing.
I must admit I don’t know the details of the matter.
But there is enough doubts to don’t burn the old hag to the stake without knowing more.
But marriage is serious matter. After twenty years of marriage I think the wife is entitled to have children from his husband. Maybe she wanted but the husband delayed the matter for years. Maybe they did it together. We don’t know if she initiated the divorce or was him to do so. I have my doubts that a woman leave his man after twenty years after him overcome a serious disease and then want his sperm to obtain children.
The part about the money is problematic. For sure.
My opinion is this:
given the laws and the technological capability it would not be so difficult to obtain a sample of biological tissues of some rich man like Bill Gates III. Just anything could work. A water glass he sip, a bit of blood from the dentist and like. Then, from these, grow the cells and produce sperm cells. Impregnate a woman. Give birth, sue, profit.
This may or may not be on topic for this post… but this has pretty much shredded what little faith I had left in humanity.
http://www.doccool.com/cheated-on-husband-for-better-genes/
I would doubt any woman who said she cheated for the genes. Sure, it’s possible. But women have cheated and foisted the other man’s kid off on hubby long before humanity knew about the double helix. I didn’t read the whole article but this Karen admits freely she cheats for the sex and thinks she is not naturally monogamous. I would guess the genes reason is just rationalization. The paternity of the kids may be accidental, or maybe she even did it on purpose because it’s so much more fun to get pregnant by your hot lover. It’s hard to say. But evo psych was inevitably going to become a rationalization for cheating for some people.
http://www.doccool.com/cheated-on-husband-for-better-genes/
No hon, you cheated on your husband because you are a lying whore.
@ Stephenie:
Yup. Nothing else to it.