chem1st Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Quite often see a lot of posts on here referring to the biological father of a child as 'sperm donor'. Often this is in threads which aim to take as much money off of the absent parent as possible. When did people start referring to the father of their children as 'sperm donor's? Is the welfare state at fault? A friend of mine works and earns £200 a week, his ex partner with whom he has a child, left him and gets £250 a week in benefits. In addition he pays her £30 a week, looks after the child 2 days a week, buy clothes etc. In the case of my friend, his ex-partner is far better off financially than she would be with him. These 'sperm donors' can be very lucrative if milked correctly, so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 I hate parents who slag the other parent off to the kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgarian Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Do women have to pay maintenance if the child stays with the father, has that ever even happened ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shinyhappy68 Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 A biological father, is a dad who may not live with their kids, but has input financially, emotionally and physically. A sperm donor is exactly that, they helped conceive a child and are knowingly a parent but have no input or contribute only in a negative way. IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 They changed their names when it was the correct time to vilify them. It's called euphemism creep and it's being going on a lot longer than there were "sperm donors" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 If there is ever a male contraceptive pill, the birthrate in the West will drop significantly. I suspect that the production of it has been embargoed because of this fact. What man in full control of his faculties would choose to have children of his own accord given the way the world is in 2011? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 I don't like to see it written or hear it used by anyone as it seems to be a dismissive and contemptuous term to use about the biological father of a child. But then when you hear some of the stories of the utter disrespect and disregard some fathers have for their ex partners and children, you can understand why it might be used at times. I wouldn't like to think that the term was being used in the hearing of the children of the union though, unless the father was actually a genuine sperm donor and never intended to be anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 If there is ever a male contraceptive pill, the birthrate in the West will drop significantly. I suspect that the production of it has been embargoed because of this fact. What man in full control of his faculties would choose to have children of his own accord given the way the world is in 2011?If this is true, why do so many choose not to use the most readily available, convenient and reliable form of contraception available to them, then? And the only one that goes a long way to protecting the sexual health of both participants. A condom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dad of 2 Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Quite often see a lot of posts on here referring to the biological father of a child as 'sperm donor'. Often this is in threads which aim to take as much money off of the absent parent as possible. When did people start referring to the father of their children as 'sperm donor's? Is the welfare state at fault? A friend of mine works and earns £200 a week, his ex partner with whom he has a child, left him and gets £250 a week in benefits. In addition he pays her £30 a week, looks after the child 2 days a week, buy clothes etc. In the case of my friend, his ex-partner is far better off financially than she would be with him. These 'sperm donors' can be very lucrative if milked correctly, so to speak. oh so true. nail on head. correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streamline Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 If this is true, why do so many choose not to use the most readily available, convenient and reliable form of contraception available to them, then? And the only one that goes a long way to protecting the sexual health of both participants. A condom. Seeing that the last time I looked there were close to 200,000 abortions carried out in this country per year why don't women do the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.