Blogging politics, culture, sociology and life from Brisvegas
Over at Mel Gregg’s place, Jean has come up with a novel and innovative form of Stoushing‚Ñ¢! T-shirts at ten paces!
Ps: Speaking of Stoushing‚Ñ¢, it’s Cut Price Commentariat’s first birthday. Such a combative youngster at an early age!
Update: Kate has the stoushing threads hotness shirt.
Please read the comments policy. If you would like an icon beside your comment, please register a Gravatar.
There is a Comments Preview function below the typing box which activates when you start typing.
Larvatus Prodeo is an Australian group blog which discusses politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
Hey, speaking of the Queer as Folk bit, you don’t think they’ll work in the Swedish Sperm Theft trick into the plot with Mel and Lindsay do you? Heard on the radio this morning that Swedish judges don’t believe in sperm theft after all(where are you Evil?) Apparently it has an owner in its original victim. Seems some silly turnip had his sperm ripped off by 2 friendly lesbians, to produce 3 nippers for these 2 lovebirds. Alas, they have gone their separate ways and now the learned judge reckons the turnip is up for the 3 munchkins’ maintenance. You reckon some of us old conservatives aren’t having a quiet chuckle right about now. We told you sooooooo….!
Supreme Court ruling no less described here
http://www.thelocal.se/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=310
Actually by pure chance if you look down the list of commenters on the linked article, you’ll notice Evil is already on the job. Tee hee.
So that’s where EP got to - Sweden!
I’ve found my stoushing t shirt.
That was well spotted, observa. I assumed EP just rode away on his warkitten.
What sayeth you about all of this my dear sweet liberal progressives? Perhaps we conservatives will pop back next week when you’ve all time to have a good hard think about slippery slopes and brave new worlds. Guffaw!
Actually, more on the topic of the thread Mark linked to at Mel’s place, there’s a scene in one of the first eps of the L Word where an artist is about to have a threesome with Bette and Tina, and pulls out a condom, only to discover they want to conceive. “You lesbians only want to sleep with men to steal their sperm”, he declaims, before leaving.
As a founder member of Bisexuals against Sperm Theft, observa, of course I condemn it. People should always consent to reproductive choices, or take preventative measures.
Take my sperm…
Please!
Thank you I’ll be here all week.
Surely Kim you should have an E word in your org’s title to get the appropriate acronym?
Thanks, Amanda, good suggestion.
Bisexuals Extremely against Sperm Theft.
Yeah, Observa, because one shitty decision by a judge in Sweden signals an irreversible slope down to Moral Decline and Disorder. Oh my oh my, let the gnashing of teeth and the banging of breasts and the tearing of hair commence!
By the way, I’ve put my t-shirt up at my place.
Uh, OK. That works too!
WHy are the conservatives chuckling? The court has ruled that the father is responsible for the children’s maintenance, which is a very conservative decision.
Nice shirt, Kate!
I forgot to link to Kate’s t-shirt.
Mark, maybe we can raise from blog-running funds from doing t-shirts? Purple t-shirts even.
Not a bad idea, Kate! Suggested slogans?
I think we’d need to have slogan competition.
Good idea - wanna do the post since it’s your suggestion?
Yes, I will — I’ll put it up when I get back from dinner.
Kimberella,
I have a modest task for you, if you would indulge me.
Will give it my immediate attention, Fyodor, at least in thinking about the questions. A bit tired this evening and the front page of the blog is a bit crowded. Thanks!
Hey look, Evil Pundit can hijack a thread even in his absence!
Re: slogans.
How about, “Larvatus Prodeo: It’s Swedish for Sperm Theft.”
Yes Zarquon, I’d agree it was a conservative ruling, but I’d also suggest it was the most logical, sensible decision, which has now thrown down the gauntlet more broadly to the liberal progressive mantra. My take is that the judge, faced with opening up a Pandoras Box of value related problems, ran for the cover of the natural and normal. He ducked for the safety of mother nature here and plumped for primacy of biology over the esoteric. A child is the product of one sperm and one egg, ie one father and one mother and he daren’t define it otherwise, no matter how that sperm and egg came together. Sorry feller, you’re the biological dad and you owe the biological mum assistance with child-rearing now, just like any other married or defacto, heterosexual couple. You cannot assign or give away that natural and social responsibility and society’s laws are here to affirm that absolutely.
Now the judge could have taken the somewhat legalistic, contractual view, that the upbringing had been assigned to the 2 mums, as there was no dispute this was the agreement between the parties. However, if he took that view, he would ultimately be opening society up to the notion that only the child-bearing mother was responsible for child-rearing. Simply put, like the lesbian ‘dad’ here, every biological father could claim that his ‘partner’ had taken on the role of mother and father at the time of impregnation and that was the only reason he had agreed to be the biological father of her child. An impossible situation for a society that believes optimal nurturing comes from a mum and a dad. Such a decision would let every philandering ne-er do well, bloke off the hook, forever more and would have huge ramifications for social security payments. In fact, colluding couples would have a vested interest in milking the current system. Why get married to have kids? They agree(nudge, nudge, wink, wink) that dad assigns his father role to mum and she goes on the SPB, while dad trips off to work. It would ultimately bankrupt SPB. This is why we currently have to treat defacto heterosexual couples as marrieds for a level playing field. Notice here too, that at some stage cohabiting heterosexuals run into the same legal obligations as married couples. To put it another way, our legal and social security system, would be asked to assess the same of every same sex cohabiting couple and what an intrusive, administrative nightmare that would be. Is it any wonder our learned judge made the decision he did. He’d be quite happy to let some other higher court take the plunge into the liberal, progressive’s brave new world if they want to.
What this decision really challenges is the whole notion of homosexual marriage. As for lesbians trying to get sperm donor men to accede to their procreative wishes post this decision, all I can say is good luck girls. Bad news travels fast.
And who the hell would want to be a sperm donor now, period!
You’re assuming that a) all men who donate sperm to women do so under these circumstances, ie, with no input whatsoever and yet without the protections of anonymous donation b) that one ruling in one country can be extrapolated to the rest of the world, Observa. Oh, and that c) all lesbian parents or parents to be will try to take advantage of such legal findings thus scaring away all male potential sperm donors.
I don’t think it was a great decision but I do think if women want men to donate sperm and have nothing to do with child-rearing some sort of legally binding contract needs to be applied.
And who the hell would want to be a sperm donor now, period!
I thought I saw Anthony volunteering a little bit further up the thread.
Why, are you in the market for some, Observa?
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration , Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids…
-Base Commander Ripper
Hec I think I agree with observa (who can make sense if he stays off the grog
).
I can remember a ruling here a few years ago where a single mum - who may have already been on some welfare payment was denied some additional payments, family payment maybe (??? I can’t remember the details) because she refused to make an effort to get maintenance from the father and her defence was that he had donated the sperm on the agreement that he would not have anything to do with the child or be liable for maintenance.
Oh and I think our welfare authorities already have to make judgements on who is ‘cohabiting’ or not and from all I hear it is an intrusive, administrative nightmare.
But back on topic. Perhaps it the slogan should read: “Because sperm theft is not just for conservatives anymore”
Anthony of course, just gets funnier by the glass.
LOL!
Hey Mark, did you know your blog only attracts low value losers with too much time on their hands? See point eight. “Aim tightly”, always good advice.
And your frivolous headlines? BAD!
Observa, it doesn’t challenge homosexual marriage at all, in fact it suports it. If Sweden had gay marriages then the two women would be the parents of Bjorn, Frida and Anna and the sperm donor’s claims of paternity wouldn’t be needed. I separation would be treated like any other divorce.
I do like how you revise history to claim that fathers paying maintenance for children is a conservative idea since historically single mothers were treated as pariahs and their bastard children worse.
“You‚Äôre assuming that a) all men who donate sperm to women do so under these circumstances, ie, with no input whatsoever and yet without the protections of anonymous donation b) that one ruling in one country can be extrapolated to the rest of the world, Observa.”
I think tou’re missing the point Kate about a very important precedent being set here by the highest court in a bastion of liberal progressivism, namely Sweden.
“The Supreme Court has now confirmed rulings by two lower courts that he is liable to support them.”(from the article I linked to we can probably assume this is equivalent to our High Court)
When push came to shove, the supposedly liberal progressive judge/s opted for the solid ground of natural biology, rather than the shifting quicksand of any alternatives. Notice also that they were prepared to discard totally the defence of deception or entrapment, which our courts often don’t. The decision totally discarded how paternity was established and ruled on the outcome of that paternity. Presumably the court would also rule the same in the circumstance where the defendant denied paternity, but the lesbian mums/dads/whatever had deviously gained a DNA sample from the biological father and proved paternity likewise. eg they snuck some hair off his comb and had it tested or the like. I think this has enormous ramifications as a precedent in liberal democracies, particularly as Sweden is supposedly cutting edge for the liberal progressive dream. IMO the judge/s made the decision they did for the reasons I outlined and it was the only rational, sensible decision they could make. If Sweden wants to buck that, then they’re damn well gunna have to do it through their parliament, which of course they can do at any time they choose. That will be an extremely hard sell, precisely for the administrative nightmare I outlined and I’m sure the Swedish Supreme Court in its wisdom, considered only too well. They sensed the danger here, as would every other liberal, democratic judicial system facing the same circumstances.
What this decision does now, is make every past anonymous or contractual sperm donor extremely nervous, because they can be lumped with paternity and child maintenance at any time, irrespective of deception and entrapment it would seem. It is only necessary to prove paternity beyond reasonable doubt, irrespective of the devious means by which it is proven. That has to dry up an already reluctant sperm donor bank I would suggest.(at last count I think Victoria only had a dozen or so volunteers on its books and was touting for more)
Now one way around this dilemma for our contractual sperm donor here, would be for the 2 lesbian mums to be able to legally adopt the offspring, as per a sterile heterosexual couple and take on the full care and legal liability issues. However he’s in the same pickle if the daddy mum reneges after the birth, particularly if bub turns out to have some serious physiological problems, which might encourage daddy mum to scarper. Beware again all ye prospective sperm donors, because you can’t adopt out a child until it exists, or not the last time I checked. That leaves the onus on the biological mum only, if you’re not to rope in the biological dad here and as I pointed out before, you’re out of the frying pan and into the fire if you do. Smart heterosexual couples would drive a bus through your social security system with that social outlook. Liberal progressives, thinking that you can shake up sperm and eggs and toss them all about with gay abandon, have sociological bats in their belfries, for we green conservatives. To Swedish Supreme Courts too it seems.
“I do like how you revise history to claim that fathers paying maintenance for children is a conservative idea since historically single mothers were treated as pariahs and their bastard children worse.”
Zarquon, the notion that fathering children was a serious and long term commitment to both child and mother was a time honoured and conservative idea. It was inextricably linked to the institution of marriage. True, it was coupled with social approbrium for unwed mothers, but that was for some very good sociological reasons. It was assumed children needed a mum and a dad for optimal parenting and social outcomes. When liberal progressives thought this was all a bit too restrictive and began to pay women to have bastard children on their own, often to a number of drop in dads, then of course all was sweetness and light. Now 68% of negro children in the US grow up without fathers, when it was only 4% in the 1950s. Now that they’ve had the benefit of Martin Luther King which we all applaud, coupled with these liberal progressive incentive payments for bastardry, how are they doing generally speaking? Do you notice any parallels in our society too?
observa, tell me more about the “daddy mums” - I’m guessing you worked that particular phrase out in the enlightening haze of smoko room.
Percentage of nonsmokers who had been divorced in 1997: 32%
Percentage of smokers who had been divorced in 1997: 49%
Tsk!
“Observa, it doesn‚Äôt challenge homosexual marriage at all, in fact it suports it. If Sweden had gay marriages then the two women would be the parents of Bjorn, Frida and Anna and the sperm donor‚Äôs claims of paternity wouldn‚Äôt be needed. I separation would be treated like any other divorce.”
Zarquon, I know Sweden moved to change their same-sex civil unions to full ‘gay marriage’ a couple of years back and don’t know if they did (and can’t be bothered googling) but I doubt it would make much difference anyway. Marriage is not exactly a flourishing institution in Sweden (this article has some stats and analysis of trends even though it’s a bit off topic)
Nah Zoe, I just used daddy mum to differentiate her from the mummy mum (biological one) If you’re a bit confused as to whether they’re mums, dads or neither then all this dad can say is, you’re not alone.
Perhaps you’d be better sticking to terminology that was accurate, observa, if you are so easily confused.
I suggest you combat your confusion by locating some benevolently minded lesbian family members and ask them some questions. The ones in my family are sick of twittish comments like yours, so I’m afraid I can’t recommend they assist you.
Breaking news: Observa Confused, Nation Reels In Shock
…
Seriously observa, what’s the problem? Some kids have two mums. Some kids have two dads. Some have variations and combinations. It’s hardly a recent phenomenon.
Evil Pundit can hijack a thread even in his absence!
It’s fine to be away, but I get paid more if I actually turn up.
One good thing about Sweden is that its brand-new feminist party is on the way to self-destruction in less than a year of existence.
Maybe Kim is wrong, and politics really would be different if women were in charge. This could be the best practical way to achieve anarchy.
There’s only a problem liam, when middle class twits advocate their fads for the margins of our society, without the middle class values that need to go with it and then we conservatives are expected to pay for the poor outcomes of their naive social meanderings. To then be told ‘what’s your problem’, is somewhat galling, as you might well imagine.