A. It's not silly.  It's called common sense, since in life people have to give up things to support a marriage.  For example, she has to give up chances at other dudes sperm.

B.  It doesn't matter.  If I say "I give this PS3 to you to watch movies."  and you use it to play games... I can't do shit about it.

As for extending the analogy... the part where it fails is... you are now treating a child as property.

A child is a person.  Sperm is not.

The sex act he had eventually ended up in him having a child.  So he is obviously responsible and should of paid more attention.

A. I think what you consider to be "common sense" is just nonsense. Glad laws are different over here in this aspect. All assets are separate (except those who were acquired together, as in with money provided by both spouses). Obviously a man's sperm is his own property. Women will be entitled to sperm when they'll be able to produce it themselves.

B. Not really. If you specified that, you can say I broke the conditions of our agreement, and ask to recieve the PS3 back.

The sex act did not result in him having a child. The conception of the child was the result of the woman putting the sperm in her vagina by herself (using IFV or whatever, I don't remember what it said in the article). IT WAS NOT THE RESULT OF THE ORAL SEX (actually the act that resulted in the conception of the child was not sexual at all, and it did not involve the man at all). If the man had intended for his sperm to wind up in the woman's vagina, he would've inserted his penis in her vagina, and would've ejaculated in her. He did not do that. Also, I'm sure that the woman decieved him, and faked disposing of the sperm (either by pretening to swallow it, or something similar).

Anyways, if this woman wanted the child, she should take care of it HERSELF. These women are too self-entitled, thinking that thay have a right to use a man's sperm without his permission, and then make the men financially support their whims.

A) That's completely nonsensicle.  Considering that a large percentage of marriages end in divorce... such laws basically mandate that both parents need to work or one of them ends up fucked on the highly likely chance they get a divorce.

Which is very damaging to children.

B)  The sex act did cause it to happen... because that is when he released the sperm to her.

And no... I could not take back the PS3.  Unless you signed a written document specifically waiving that right of using the PS3.  Actually, even that I don't think would be legal based on the EU framework of the laws.

Well, damn if you do, damn if you don't.

Remembering the wikileaks case, if a man tricks a woman to get her sperm into her, that's wrong (with which I agree), but if a woman tricks a man to get his sperm into her, he should have been more careful?
No, when it comes to pregnancy and kids, it's a woman's world in the West.

Joint property is perfectly fine in a more traditional marriage. Try disputing it in Japan where women are still expected to quit their job when a baby comes along, stay out of the job at least until kid is 4 y/o and then be expected to take a part-time job at most. Many of them want just that though, just as many men want their wife to take care of their kids, have a perfect household while they earn the money. Prenups are certainly fine nowadays if both parties are in the clear what they are going to be giving and taking from that marriage.

A. Well, FTR back during the Communist regime it was illegal not to have a job (if you didn't have one, you'd be thrown in jail, and afterwards forced to get a job in whatever field the authorities sent you to). This applied to both men and women indiscriminately. I like it, as I find it very supportive equality between the sexes. There's really no excuse to not work, and living like a leech sucking someone else's hard earned money (sorry, cleaning your own hosue and making food for yourself, with food bought with your husbands money, is not a real job ).

And children DO recieve child support, so there's no damaged done. By law, parents over here are required to financially support their children up 'till they turn 26 (provided they continue their studies untill that time). I still recieve child support from my father.

B. Was the child concieved as the result of the oral sex? I don't think so!

If a person runs over an old lady with a car, are you gonna arrest the people who manufactured the car? Or the people at the store that sold the car? Isn't the person at fault the psycho who used the car to run over the old lady?

I'm actually sure we could sign such a document. The thing is though, what proof would I have that you gave me the PS3? You could claim that I stole it from you (and since you bought it, you could provide the receipt to prove you purchased it, while I could not really provide any proof that you gave it to me).

Similarly, what proof does this woman have that he gave her his sperm. And if we're going by the premise that the sperm really did become her "property", going back to my above analogy (with the car) why should he be responsable for the woman's use of her "property" and the results of those actions?

I agree. Double standards and manhating at work. It's sad really, and all due to self entitled women and the people who support them.

If the man specifically said "I do not want this to be used to have a child."

You'd have a point.

Though even still... it would not be a full point... since the man's contribution has ended at this point.

The woman was being violated physically while he ejaculated.

A similar case would be if some woman tied you down and raped you and then forced you to pay child support.

That is a case.... she would not win.

It's really easy stuff to understand... yet you don't get it.

I'm not sure how to explain it in simplier terms.

Except maybe this...

if you drop a gum wrapper on the ground... anyone who finds that gum wrapper can use it in any way they wish.  (Or a public trashcan for that matter.)

It's the same with sperm.

The difference is... a gum wrapper will never be a fully legitamite human being with it's own rights.

Such difference only happens sometime after conception.

To logically hold your position... you would have to be Pro-Life... and i know for a fact you aren't.   In fact... your so Pro Choice i believe you said it doesn't count as a baby until it's born.

At this point i'm just going to have to blame it on your racist, sexist, homophobic culture.  With the Homophobia not sticking because well... you are gay.

It's like how large swaths of individual minorities complain about all the stereotypes about them, yet still totally believe every stereotype about other minorities.

As is often seen in a lot of racism between blacks and hispanics... and how black people were actually the reason the homophobic Prop 9 got passed.

It was assault because at some point she became aware he wasn't using a condom/condom was busted. Now would it still be wrong if she didn't learn about that until much later? I think it would still be. So in the BJ case, what is this man's fault? Not realising at the time that the woman hadn't spit/swallowed, after a sexual act that cannot result in a pregnancy? Should a man warn that they want no kids after finishing on a woman's breasts? In a condom? Place condom in chlorine immediately, or in the microwave?

Sex is nowadays not a procreational activity by default. Nobody needs to declare that they don't plan on making a baby via a blowjob. And in the first case... does a man need to declare that he doesn't want to make babies with a woman that he's just divorced and won't ever have sex again with?

I sympathise with single mothers who didn't plan for a life like that. Whether because they were abandoned by some guy (and even if they receive some money, it's often nowhere near enough), whether the educational system failed again, where there was some slip up.

However, in both those situations, this isn't the case. Whether done also for the purpose of getting money from the start or not, those women got themselves pregnant on purpose without the biological father's knowledge and knowing beyond any doubt that those men didn't intend on making them pregnant, and the measures taken wouldn't lead to an accidental pregnancy.

Actually that should happen BEFORE they have sex.

As for the first case. 

Like I said before... she committed criminal repoduction and would lose custody in court.

It's a lot easier for women to lose custody in court then people thin.

At least in the US.  I know more then a few people who were raised by their fathers rather then mothers... just because they had more money.  Let alone for criminal reasons.