# Hey hauss, suck it up, chickenshit **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 14, 2004, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802 "2004-12-14T16:35:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 25
**Author:** ![Yeticus\_Rex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a698b9/32.png) [@Yeticus\_Rex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeticus_Rex)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/481 "2004-12-16T21:56:41Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > C’mon now you’re just being unrealistic. There are millions of closted lesbians using donated sperm and signing non-disclosure agreements… you know and I know it. This spirit of this thread has gone from Pit to Debate to Pit and back to Debate…I’m almost ready to ask for a cite on your claim. [This is what I came up with.](http://slate.msn.com/id/104633/) > [@](#): > > The chaos of sperm banking means it answers largely to the whims of desperate customers and not to high medical or ethical standards. Fewer than a dozen of the several hundred sperm banks in the United States have bothered to meet the accreditation standards of the American Association of Tissue Banks. (The California Cryobank is accredited.) There are no standard policies about how many kids a donor may father, what tests should be performed on donors or their semen, or what records—if any—should be kept so that donors are not utterly lost. Some sperm banks keep elaborate records. Some seem to keep none. No sperm bank trade association exists, so no one even knows how many banks there are. And no one has the faintest idea how many sperm bank kids are born every year. The only reason the 1987 figure of 30,000 exists is that the federal government performed a onetime census as part of an effort to push the industry into behaving itself. I say you don’t know for sure and I don’t know for sure. Millions? That is certainly unlikely…and without good recordkeeping by some of these sperm banks, nobody knows. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/482 "2004-12-16T22:06:18Z")
**Yeti** I’m pretty sure that sound you heard was the whoosh of the overhead sarcastic comment. **yosemite** - yea, I know. Like I said, I’d been unfamiliar w/this latest phenom (and I’m not using that term in the ‘good’ way), so failed to factor that into the prediction. I attempted to feed in the data to the computer and the computer unplugged itself and started chanting “happly place, I’m in my happy place”. damndest thing. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/483 "2004-12-16T22:09:28Z")
> [@Yeticus Rex](#): > > I say you don’t know for sure and I don’t know for sure. Millions? That is certainly unlikely…and without good recordkeeping by some of these sperm banks, nobody knows. I was joking. I’m not real big on using the smilie things; i was hoping my claim would be enough to tweat your funnybone. I thought it was funny, but not as funny you looking for a cite… peace ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/484 "2004-12-16T22:11:20Z")
> [@stretch](#): > > I hate to break this to you, **treis** , but you don’t have a right to know who your parents are. Usually, you do know who they are as they raise you. If you are adopted and your birth parent(s) agree to the release of your name, you might know who both your biological and adoptive parents are. But it isn’t your _right_ to know this. > > You are trying to legislate morality. That never works. You can’t make people do what you believe is the moral thing. Okay, I’m mostly done with this thread, but I had to seize on this sentence. Drug Laws. Laws against the consumption of alcohol at certain times. The restrictions against gay marriage. Our government can, and does legislate morality. Content restrictions on television. They shouldn’t - and this is where you and I agree - so therefore, they should not legally compel a father to support his child. Supporting your child is the right and good thing to do, but the government “can’t make people do what they believe is the moral thing.” ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/485 "2004-12-16T22:14:52Z")
> [@Mynn](#): > > You made no such specification. Shouldn’t you beep when you back up that fast? Pardon me for not including biological parent. I thought it was perfectly clear. > [@Mynn](#): > > Never said donate. Said **take**. What do you mean by take? > [@Mynn](#): > > The other option is she uses the other woman as a surrogate - your model assumes that the surrogate can report who the “other” parent is, namely, egg woman. You’re asking what I would do in the case where a woman ‘takes’ sperm from a man, fertilizes an egg and then implants it in another women? > [@stretch](#): > > I hate to break this to you, treis, but you don’t have a right to know who your parents are. Usually, you do know who they are as they raise you. If you are adopted and your birth parent(s) agree to the release of your name, you might know who both your biological and adoptive parents are. But it isn’t your right to know this. I cited something twice earlier in this thread refering to a rights of a child in terms of who raises it. Clearly when a father goes to court to get custody of his kid there is some sort of ‘right’ here being exercised. Whether that right is with the father or the child there is some sort of right for the father to see his child. > [@stretch](#): > > You want all women to have to report the father of the child–regardless of their reasons for not wanting to. Yes I do. If she can prove in a court of law that the father shouldn’t be informed then we don’t inform the father. > [@stretch](#): > > You say this is for the protection of the child’s rights in the very few cases where the mother just up and chooses not to involve the father. We’re telling you that this will result in more harm than good; that in general, we believe that most women only refuse to divulge the name of the father for a good reason or because she truly doesn’t know. We don’t believe it is cost effective, just, or fair that all women be required to divulge the father of their children if they feel they have a reason not to, just to protect the very, very, very few men who may be getting screwed out of knowing a child that they really wanted even though they never developed a relationship with the mother or even tried to determine if there was a child. > > I think I understand what you want. I also think it is unworkable. No matter how you tweak it, it is more likely to be harmful than beneficial. Can you understand what we are saying and why we believe your solution is utterly wrong? I disagree that it would be more harmful than beneficial. If it turns out to be that way then scrap it I have said it before and I will say it again. I think that a court hearing is a better way to determine if a father is dangerous than by a whim of the mother. > [@Rilchiam](#): > > How many laws do you want changed here? > > Making changes in law is difficult and time consuming. And even if you get one law changed, or a new one introduced, that’s going to skew the interpretation and application of other laws. > > Are you under the impression that all the changes you suggest can be brought about in your lifetime? Or did you see the “I’m Just A Bill” sketch one two many times? My point was that the debate about illegal immigration was neither here nor there. If this law ends up causing a few instinces where our current laws are applied then that is no reason for the law not to be passed. ---
**Author:** ![Rilchiam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rilchiam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rilchiam)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/486 "2004-12-16T22:16:54Z")
**treis** , you are in a hole. Stop digging. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/487 "2004-12-16T22:18:23Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Supporting your child is the right and good thing to do, but the government “can’t make people do what they believe is the moral thing.” This isn’t an issue of mortality, that just treis’s crazy ass law. This is about allocation of resources and tapping into the publc fund. And we’re back were we started. If the government shouldn’t make the father pay for his children, then who will? You, me, the mother? Fine, she can’t make it on her own. Now what? State institutions? Why should the line to pay up be drawn AHEAD of the father? Why does he get to go to the back of the line? Because he was smart enough to do a runner? unacceptable. ---
**Author:** ![Yeticus\_Rex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a698b9/32.png) [@Yeticus\_Rex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeticus_Rex)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/488 "2004-12-16T22:20:28Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > **What** problem?? There is absolutely no evidence that there are large numbers of men who want to raise children they didn’t know they had fathered because the mother hid the pregnancy and birth from them. An infinitely more common problem is getting fathers to take partial responsibility for the life they helped create. Why not fix the common injustices before focusing on the exceedingly rare ones? (Assuming of course that you’re actually interested in justice and you’re not just some pro-life nutjob with an agenda.) I already posted the solution to the common problem, it happened to be solution #2. Should I bump that to #1 and vice versa for the other solution? Noticed that I put “numerous” in quote marks to imply some sarcasm into that statement? #1 would have been a by-product of using #2. Maybe I should have switched them on preview. > [@Modified suggestions from YR](#): > > 1. When applying for child support or welfare, current parental custodian and qualifying child(ren) must submit to DNA sampling in order to receive support from the state or the non-custodial parent, subject to court review. This will help to establish who pays for what, AND (as a bonus) weeds out welfare double-dipping in some instances (people claiming the same kids as their own and then loaned out to other people to establish their own claims - I think the savings here would fund the whole program and then some). Child support claims should only be retroactive to the last 12 months from the claim date, and the “deadbeat” parent has visitation rights subject to court review. > > 2. If baby is dropped off at a hospital, police, fire station. Then automatically take a DNA sample (swab) and file the DNA on the database to be accessible only to the court system. An unknowing father/mother can submit (to opt-in) there own DNA to see if they match anyone in the system and then have can reinstate parental rights subject to court review. This covers the **“numerous”** instances of babies dropped off by mothers who don’t want to let the father know even though father might have **“some interest”** in the kid. Otherwise, foster care and adoption will take place in some time frame (debatable). > > 3. Hi Opal; is there anything that can be added? I’m sure there’s something else. > I think this addresses a few concerns raised here in this murky muck of a thread, it help solves some of the concerns and “Opting In” is not Big Brotherish compared to a full blown DNA registry. It ain’t perfect, but it’s better to have a lawn with a few weeds instead a whole lawn of crabgrass. Work with me here, people. I want to see some solutions (wouldn’t you?), not nitpicking or excessive bashing. Anything else that can be added? Oh, and **holmes** , “thanks” for the whoosh… :o **Giraffe** got whoosed also with my “numerous” comment. I’m just trying to think out an improvement on the system as a whole, including resolving those far-fetched issues. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/489 "2004-12-16T22:24:13Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > They shouldn’t - and this is where you and I agree - so therefore, they should not legally compel a father to support his child. I don’t think they are compelling him to support his child from a strict morality point of view, but from a fairness/don’t burden society with your irresponsibility point of view. It’s immoral to take something without paying for it, and it’s also illegal. It’s immoral to not live up to your obligations, and in many cases, it’s also illegal. The government shouldn’t be able to punish people strictly because they decided that they “sinned,” but the government can expect people to behave in certain ways, and compel them to do so (pay your bills, don’t drive too fast, etc.). ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/490 "2004-12-16T22:27:07Z")
yosemite- We still force people to pay child support even if the parent with sole custody can support the child on its own. ---
**Author:** ![stretch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a6a055/32.png) [@stretch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stretch)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/491 "2004-12-16T22:32:29Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Okay, I’m mostly done with this thread, but I had to seize on this sentence. > > Drug Laws. Laws against the consumption of alcohol at certain times. The restrictions against gay marriage. Our government can, and does legislate morality. Content restrictions on television. > > They shouldn’t - and this is where you and I agree - so therefore, they should not legally compel a father to support his child. > > Supporting your child is the right and good thing to do, but the government “can’t make people do what they believe is the moral thing.” Our government may be legislating morality in your examples–that’s a whole 'nother thread. As the law stands, the government does not have a compelling interest in knowing who the parents of a child are just because a child exists. The government has a compelling interest in you (generic) supporting your child because if you don’t the government has to. Absent parents are compelled to provide child support not because of morality but because of costs. The fact that requiring absent parents to pay support is also a moral thing is just a nice by-product of the requirement for people to pay for their own offspring to the extent they are capable to relieve the burden on taxpayers. There is a way\* to completely avoid paying child support. It’s legal and will only cost the absent parent 36 years of his/her life. It also sucks and is not the way I would like to live, but if it’s that important to a person, then they are welcome to it. All you have to do is hide from support enforcement until the statutue of limitations on the child support runs out. On preview: > [@treis](#): > > We still force people to pay child support even if the parent with sole custody can support the child on its own. That is because the child shouldn’t have to live a lesser quality of life just because the absent parent doesn’t want to fork over the cash. Absent parents don’t just get to bail because the custodial parent can afford rent and food. Don’t be an ass and punish the kid because of the parents inability to keep their shit together. \*under current Washington state law and possibly federal guidelines as well ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/492 "2004-12-16T22:32:56Z")
> [@treis](#): > > yosemite- > > We still force people to pay child support even if the parent with sole custody can support the child on its own. And we still make people pay for Windows XP, even though Bill Gates is a bakajillionaire. A financial obligation is still a financial obligation. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/493 "2004-12-16T22:39:21Z")
> [@yosemite](#): > > I don’t think they are compelling him to support his child from a strict morality point of view, but from a fairness/don’t burden society with your irresponsibility point of view. I should have expanded my thought. If you remove the ‘don’t burden society’ part we are compelling child support from a fairness standpoint. Where do we get our concept of fairness from besides our morals? ---
**Author:** ![badbadrubberpiggy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/57b2e6/32.png) [@badbadrubberpiggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badbadrubberpiggy)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/494 "2004-12-16T22:41:56Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Yes I do. If she can prove in a court of law that the father shouldn’t be informed then we don’t inform the father. > > . Please explain how a woman would possibly prove this without informing the father of the child. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/495 "2004-12-16T22:42:20Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Where do we get our concept of fairness from besides our morals? You want to remove “fairness” from our laws? ---
**Author:** ![stretch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a6a055/32.png) [@stretch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stretch)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/496 "2004-12-16T22:45:36Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I should have expanded my thought. If you remove the ‘don’t burden society’ part we are compelling child support from a fairness standpoint. Where do we get our concept of fairness from besides our morals? I believe in this case we got our concept of fairness from people bitching about paying taxes for welfare for children whose parents wouldn’t support them. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/497 "2004-12-16T22:47:28Z")
yosemite- No, I was just pointing out that our current child support laws are based on morality not just to prevent the government having to pick up the tab for the child. badbadrubberpiggy- The mother would spell out the reasons she has for not telling the father about the child. If the judge agrees then we don’t tell the father if the judge disagrees we tell the father. ---
**Author:** ![badbadrubberpiggy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/57b2e6/32.png) [@badbadrubberpiggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badbadrubberpiggy)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/498 "2004-12-16T22:54:54Z")
> [@treis](#): > > yosemite- > > No, I was just pointing out that our current child support laws are based on morality not just to prevent the government having to pick up the tab for the child. > > badbadrubberpiggy- > > The mother would spell out the reasons she has for not telling the father about the child. If the judge agrees then we don’t tell the father if the judge disagrees we tell the father. Sooo…she can basically tell him anything? She can say he was abusive, a drug addict, a pedophile, or threatened her life, and doesn’t actually have to prove it? I’d say that’s a pretty huge loophole in your plan. And no, it’s NOT always obvious if somebody’s lying. As another poster said earlier, a woman who knows this law and doesn’t want to name the father has ample time to come up with a plan that will allow them not to name the father. Judges require PROOF. I don’t beleive you will find a judge who would be able to rule strictly on what anyone tells him, with nothing to back it up. ---
**Author:** ![Tinkertoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f19dbf/32.png) [@Tinkertoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tinkertoy)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/499 "2004-12-16T22:57:43Z")
> [@treis](#): > > The mother would spell out the reasons she has for not telling the father about the child. If the judge agrees then we don’t tell the father if the judge disagrees we tell the father. That would be great! If we could could get **King Solomon** to do the judging. Unfortunately we live in the real world. Where a mother has to have proof that may be unatainable without putting the child and herself at risk. The sky is blue in the real world. What color is it in yours? On preview what **Piggy** said. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/500 "2004-12-16T23:02:16Z")
If she can’t provide any evidence to back up her assertions then isn’t her fear unfounded? If she can’t point to a history of abuse or a clear reason why he shouldn’t be informed then he gets informed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802.md?page=26)