Help us have a family

Forums › Off topic › Help us have a family

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1217620 19-Jan-2015 14:36

In fact, if I was in this situation I'm not sure if I'd want the donation coming from a close friend.

I couldn't agree more.

whatarethey

7 posts

Wannabe Geek

#1217830 19-Jan-2015 19:55

networkn:

What a strange way to view relationships! Each to their own....

To the OP, I don't think it's as simple as 'give me some sperm and I'll send you a photo of the baby'.

A gay couple I know went through this and it was a long and thorough process finding the right donor. Certainly wasn't as easy as just finding someone keen on a message board. I think you just need to go through the process with Fertility Associates. They are great, we had issues trying to conceive and were on the verge of IUI before finally falling pregnant. We now have a beautiful 3 month old daughter. She was worth the wait.

Congratulations! I know a couple who tried for 5 years to conceive before "giving up" and going IVF. They were all set for the treatments and the wife threw up in the car on the way there, TWINS!

Aw... Cool.
If only that could happen for us. Although if it did it would cause a major stir in biological science ;)

whatarethey

7 posts

Wannabe Geek

#1217839 19-Jan-2015 20:11

networkn:

In fact, if I was in this situation I'm not sure if I'd want the donation coming from a close friend.

I couldn't agree more.

I'm ambivalent about it.

In some ways it would be nice. i.e. we'd know they (probably) weren't crazies, and it would mean they wouldn't be a complete stranger to our little one, which might be good for both of them.
In other ways it just sounds like potential for disaster. We're not looking for a co-parenting situation at all, and I'd hate to make things weird. Weirder.

lokhor

2858 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1217868 19-Jan-2015 20:44

The thing I find weird is that we don't have a way of allowing same sex couples to conceive a child that uses 50% of each of their DNA. I hope there is research happening that will allow this in future.

All comments are my own opinion, and not that of my employer unless explicitly stated.

coffeebaron

6231 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1217878 19-Jan-2015 21:07

lokhor: The thing I find weird is that we don't have a way of allowing same sex couples to conceive a child that uses 50% of each of their DNA. I hope there is research happening that will allow this in future.

Because it takes a Mum and a Dad to make a baby :)

Rural IT and Broadband support.

Broadband troubleshooting and master filter installs.
Starlink installer - one month free: https://www.starlink.com/?referral=RC-32845-88860-71
Wi-Fi and networking
Cel-Fi supply and installer - boost your mobile phone coverage legally

Need help in Auckland, Waikato or BoP? Click my email button, or email me direct: [my user name] at geekzonemail dot com

Mark

1653 posts

Uber Geek

#1217880 19-Jan-2015 21:10

lokhor: The thing I find weird is that we don't have a way of allowing same sex couples to conceive a child that uses 50% of each of their DNA. I hope there is research happening that will allow this in future.

They have : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1431489.stm

Says something about there not being enough information to produce a male baby though ... so if it comes into active use us guys will become extinct!!!!!!

Glassboy

850 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1217928 19-Jan-2015 22:27

Mark:
lokhor: The thing I find weird is that we don't have a way of allowing same sex couples to conceive a child that uses 50% of each of their DNA. I hope there is research happening that will allow this in future.

They have : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1431489.stm

Says something about there not being enough information to produce a male baby though ... so if it comes into active use us guys will become extinct!!!!!!

You misread and obviously don't understand the basic genetic difference between males and females.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1217934 19-Jan-2015 22:40

lokhor: The thing I find weird is that we don't have a way of allowing same sex couples to conceive a child that uses 50% of each of their DNA. I hope there is research happening that will allow this in future.

two eggs or two sperms? hmm ... easier to clone husain bolt

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1217939 19-Jan-2015 22:50

Glassboy:
Mark:
lokhor: The thing I find weird is that we don't have a way of allowing same sex couples to conceive a child that uses 50% of each of their DNA. I hope there is research happening that will allow this in future.

They have : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1431489.stm

Says something about there not being enough information to produce a male baby though ... so if it comes into active use us guys will become extinct!!!!!!

You misread and obviously don't understand the basic genetic difference between males and females.

as far as i understand, there are two potential issues

1) embryos start as one cell. that mother of all thing smaller than dust somehow sucks energy from its surrounding and converts that into making about a million million different pieces of lego that harvests oxygen and converts itSELF into something more complex than a million mars probe that cleans and feeds itself. [look - people do research on "the kidney" can they can study 50 years and still not understand just why/how the thing works, and when it doesn't they actually can't fix it. no way. and that's ONE tissue.]

- try and put two cells together and who knows there might be something wrong with the offspring ... just one message corrupted and it could have a hard lifetime ahead

2) cells are programmed to die. there's nothing science can do about it. plonk two cells together ... might not live for very long ...

i'd like my offsprings to have the best chance thank you very much

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1217945 19-Jan-2015 22:56

Glassboy:
Aredwood: Being a sperm donor is something I might just consider. As I don't see myself ever getting into a long term relationship due to the stupid relationship property laws. Although I would have to do some research into the laws to do with child support. To make sure I wouldn't be be liable in that respect.
.

You'r showing your ignorance of the law, but then again it sounds like it's just a convenient excuse. See

Property (Relationship) Act 1976, Part 6
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1976/0166/latest/DLM441361.html

Only there is a whole pile of case law that that link doesn't show you. There have been lots of cases where prenup agreements have been challenged in court. And the courts have overrulled them. Therefore you can't completely rely on them. Especially when you see things like this in the paper http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11369381 and http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11319832 When people who have far more money than what I could ever hope to have, still end up with relationship property problems.

The other big reason for what I originality said. Is that I own a house with 600K equity in it. Why should I have to gift 300K or more of that to someone just because they happened to be in a relationship with me for a few years? I bought that house when I was 22 years old. When everyone else my age was living it up, I had to put every spare dollar onto the mortgage. And im still struggling now. But I will be mortgage free approx when Im 40. So don't want to hand over 1/2 of what I have worked for. To someone who couldn't be bothered doing the hard work themselves. Yes I can understand the intention of the law when kids are involved. But it applies in the same way even when there are no kids. Which is the silly part. And when there is 300K at stake - it is definitely worthwhile from an Ex partners point of view to try and challenge a prenup in court. So you would have to budget for lawyers fees to defend it.

Either way it is alot cheaper to not get into a relationship in the first place.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1217946 19-Jan-2015 22:58

everyone loses the lawyers win!

Glassboy

850 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1217950 19-Jan-2015 23:10

Aredwood:
Glassboy:
Aredwood: Being a sperm donor is something I might just consider. As I don't see myself ever getting into a long term relationship due to the stupid relationship property laws. Although I would have to do some research into the laws to do with child support. To make sure I wouldn't be be liable in that respect.
.

You'r showing your ignorance of the law, but then again it sounds like it's just a convenient excuse. See

Property (Relationship) Act 1976, Part 6
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1976/0166/latest/DLM441361.html

Only there is a whole pile of case law that that link doesn't show you. There have been lots of cases where prenup agreements have been challenged in court. And the courts have overrulled them. Therefore you can't completely rely on them. Especially when you see things like this in the paper http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11369381 and http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11319832 When people who have far more money than what I could ever hope to have, still end up with relationship property problems.

The other big reason for what I originality said. Is that I own a house with 600K equity in it. Why should I have to gift 300K or more of that to someone just because they happened to be in a relationship with me for a few years? I bought that house when I was 22 years old. When everyone else my age was living it up, I had to put every spare dollar onto the mortgage. And im still struggling now. But I will be mortgage free approx when Im 40. So don't want to hand over 1/2 of what I have worked for. To someone who couldn't be bothered doing the hard work themselves. Yes I can understand the intention of the law when kids are involved. But it applies in the same way even when there are no kids. Which is the silly part. And when there is 300K at stake - it is definitely worthwhile from an Ex partners point of view to try and challenge a prenup in court. So you would have to budget for lawyers fees to defend it.

Either way it is alot cheaper to not get into a relationship in the first place.

OK so firstly unless you have privileged information about those cases - which you shouldn't be blabbing here - you have no idea if they are directly relevant. Secondly if you don't trust your lawyer creating the appropriate documentation then there are other vehicles such as family trusts that allow you to protect property. Thirdly if you meet the right person (and maybe even had kids) you'd find your outlook would change.

It's pretty cowardly blaming the law for one's misanthropy or misogyny.

Mark

1653 posts

Uber Geek

#1217959 19-Jan-2015 23:52

Glassboy:

You misread and obviously don't understand the basic genetic difference between males and females.

Well duhhh!!! of course I don't know the differences from a genetic perspective, I work in data storage not genetics!!

But I skimmed enough before I lost interest to read "Theoretically, it also could mean that lesbian couples could give birth to a baby girl without the need for a father. Women do not carry the genetic information required to make a boy.".

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1217961 19-Jan-2015 23:54

whatarethey:
nathan: curious to know why is there an 18 month waiting list?

Is there really that many more requests than donations? supply/demand?

<- genuine question

I think it's not so much that there are huge numbers of people waiting (although there are a lot of us) - it's more that there are so few young guys ready to donate. Payment for donations in NZ is illegal, so the sole benefit to the donor (aside from spreading their genes) is the satisfaction that they have helped give someone else who desperately wants one, the opportunity to have a family.

Or just maybe, most men see being (becoming) a father means a lot more to them than just being an anonymous sperm donor. (when they really stop and think about what it means in the long run)

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1217965 20-Jan-2015 01:23

Glassboy:
Aredwood:
Glassboy:
Aredwood: Being a sperm donor is something I might just consider. As I don't see myself ever getting into a long term relationship due to the stupid relationship property laws. Although I would have to do some research into the laws to do with child support. To make sure I wouldn't be be liable in that respect.
.

You'r showing your ignorance of the law, but then again it sounds like it's just a convenient excuse. See

Property (Relationship) Act 1976, Part 6
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1976/0166/latest/DLM441361.html

Only there is a whole pile of case law that that link doesn't show you. There have been lots of cases where prenup agreements have been challenged in court. And the courts have overrulled them. Therefore you can't completely rely on them. Especially when you see things like this in the paper http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11369381 and http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11319832 When people who have far more money than what I could ever hope to have, still end up with relationship property problems.

The other big reason for what I originality said. Is that I own a house with 600K equity in it. Why should I have to gift 300K or more of that to someone just because they happened to be in a relationship with me for a few years? I bought that house when I was 22 years old. When everyone else my age was living it up, I had to put every spare dollar onto the mortgage. And im still struggling now. But I will be mortgage free approx when Im 40. So don't want to hand over 1/2 of what I have worked for. To someone who couldn't be bothered doing the hard work themselves. Yes I can understand the intention of the law when kids are involved. But it applies in the same way even when there are no kids. Which is the silly part. And when there is 300K at stake - it is definitely worthwhile from an Ex partners point of view to try and challenge a prenup in court. So you would have to budget for lawyers fees to defend it.

Either way it is alot cheaper to not get into a relationship in the first place.

OK so firstly unless you have privileged information about those cases - which you shouldn't be blabbing here - you have no idea if they are directly relevant. Secondly if you don't trust your lawyer creating the appropriate documentation then there are other vehicles such as family trusts that allow you to protect property. Thirdly if you meet the right person (and maybe even had kids) you'd find your outlook would change.

It's pretty cowardly blaming the law for one's misanthropy or misogyny.

You will notice I said" Yes I can understand the intention of the law when kids are involved"

So to expand on that - Assume that I get into a relationship, Have 3 kids. Missus stops working so she can look after kids. Relationship ends after 5 years. She has missed out on years of earnings and career development due to being at home to look after the kids. And she is now a solo mum with 3 kids to support. So the 300K will allow her to support the kids and compensate for lost earnings / career. The law working as intended - This situation I have no problem with.

Now imagine same 5 year relationship but no kids. She has still been able to work / further her career as normal. At the end of the relationship, No kids to look after. So she is no worse off than before the relationship. Yet she is still entitled to 300K in this scenario. What "loss" has she suffered or what "wrong" is the law trying to put right when a "no kids" relationship ends?

As for family trusts - They can easily be busted open by the courts. If the house that is in the trust, is also lived in by the couple. And because alot of relationship property law is based on the outcome of previous court cases. (A judge makes a decision, Other judges have to make the same decision when the facts of the case are the same) This makes it very difficult and time consuming for a lawyer to both write up a perfect prenup. Also as new cases are heard by the courts, their outcomes add to current case law. Which in turn changes it. Meaning a good prenup contract 5 years ago might be full of holes today.

The newspaper links were simply 2 examples of people who Most likely have alot more money than me. So im guessing they got good legal advice on how to structure their affairs. Then 1 or more of: A situation occurred that neither them or their lawyer considered, the contract was unclear so the courts had to interpret it, The situation of the parties changed meaning the contract no longer reflected their actual situation, Case law changed meaning the contract no longer reflected the current law, 1 of the parties launched an opportunist case hoping to get lucky. Presumably if everything had been perfect from a legal point of view. There either these court cases would never have happened or the cases would have been about mundane matters like "you haven't paid" or "you didn't follow the contract" It was simply a way of saying that if people with better access to legal advice still run into problems. Then what hope have I got in making a prenup that will be impossible to challenge? (at least in the no kids situation)

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5