Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
17937 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5169

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1217620 19-Jan-2015 14:36
Send private message


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. 



7 posts

Wannabe Geek
+1 received by user: 4


  Reply # 1217830 19-Jan-2015 19:55
Send private message

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 ;)





7 posts

Wannabe Geek
+1 received by user: 4


  Reply # 1217839 19-Jan-2015 20:11
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.



2785 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 153

Trusted

  Reply # 1217868 19-Jan-2015 20:44
Send private message

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. 




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


5244 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2260

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1217878 19-Jan-2015 21:07
3 people support this post
Send private message

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 :)





Chorus has spent $1.4 billion on making their xDSL broadband network faster. If your still stuck on ADSL or VDSL, why not spend from $150 on a master filter install to make sure you are getting the most out of your connection?
I install - Naked DSL, DSL Master Splitters, VoIP, data cabling and general computer support for home and small business.
Rural Broadband RBI installer for Ultimate Broadband and Full Flavour

 

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


1359 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 344


  Reply # 1217880 19-Jan-2015 21:10
Send private message

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

S
ays 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!!!!!!

834 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 260

Trusted

  Reply # 1217928 19-Jan-2015 22:27
Send private message

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

S
ays 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.

Mad Scientist
18913 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2457

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1217934 19-Jan-2015 22:40
Send private message

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

Mad Scientist
18913 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2457

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1217939 19-Jan-2015 22:50
One person supports this post
Send private message

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

S
ays 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

2997 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1149

Subscriber

  Reply # 1217945 19-Jan-2015 22:56
Send private message

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.





Mad Scientist
18913 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2457

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1217946 19-Jan-2015 22:58
Send private message

everyone loses the lawyers win!

834 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 260

Trusted

  Reply # 1217950 19-Jan-2015 23:10
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.  

1359 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 344


  Reply # 1217959 19-Jan-2015 23:52
Send private message

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.".

650 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 156


  Reply # 1217961 19-Jan-2015 23:54
Send private message

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)

2997 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1149

Subscriber

  Reply # 1217965 20-Jan-2015 01:23
Send private message

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
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.