Child support claim rankles sperm donor to lesbian couple


By bgamall4   Follow   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 8:53am   2,195 views   50 comments
In Las Vegas NV 89117   Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

http://news.yahoo.com/child-support-claim-rankles-sperm-donor-lesbian-couple-014725388.html

William Marotta, 46, donated sperm to Jennifer Schreiner and Angela Bauer under a written agreement that he would not be considered the father of the child nor liable for child support. A daughter, now 3, was born to Schreiner. But in October, the state of Kansas filed a petition seeking to have Marotta declared the father of the child and financially responsible for her after the couple encountered money difficulties. Marotta will ask the court in a hearing January 8 to dismiss the claim, which centers on a state law that the sperm must be donated through a licensed physician...

« First     « Previous     Viewing Comments 11-50 of 50     Last »     See most liked comments

  1. thunderlips11


    Follow
    Befriend (13)
    263 threads
    5,192 comments

    11   12:04pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    The State doesn't care who pays, as long as somebody pays. I'm glad the Lesbian Org is standing up for the guy, though.

    The Family Court system is dominated by misandrists, however:

    They cite a 2007 case in which the Kansas Supreme Court ruled against a sperm donor seeking parental rights because he did not have any such agreement with the mother, lawyers for Marotta said.


    (from above article).

    Unfortunately, Family Law is all to happy in most states making obligations unlimited but privileges subject to the whims of the State.

  2. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,062 threads
    13,600 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    12   12:30pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike  

    HeadSet says

    Dan8267 says

    The state has no right to interfere with this arrangement.

    Wrong. You cannot write a contract that violates state law and expect it to be enforced. Especially when asking for welfare.

    If a state law is unjust, it should not be respected by a jury. Would you imprison someone for helping a runaway slave in 1850?

    Just because a state passes a law that is unjust, that act does not mean the state has the right to act on it. A state could pass a law requiring all babies to have their left hand removed, but the state has no right to remove the hands of babies regardless of what words they put on a piece of paper.

    You need to distinguish between rights and laws and realize that rights are more important.

  3. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,062 threads
    13,600 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    13   12:31pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike  

    thunderlips11 says

    The Family Court system is dominated by misandrists, however:

    Which is exactly why most men don't marry anymore. It has nothing to do with gay marriage being recognized and everything to do with demonizing men in the court system.

    You want to know what has caused the decline of marriage in recent decades? It's the family court system.

  4. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,062 threads
    13,600 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    14   12:33pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    leo707 says

    I don't know much about cloning, but I imagine that it takes quite a few more people to create a clone than two

    For now. But it is the nature of technology to become more reliable, cheaper, and more available. Eventually, you'll be able to buy a Cuisinart Cloner in Walmart for the same price as a toaster.

  5. HeadSet


    Follow
    Befriend
    4 threads
    1,488 comments
    Williamsburg, VA

    15   2:09pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (3)  

    Dan8267 says

    If a state law is unjust

    The Kansas law is hardly unjust, despite your absurd comparisons to slavery or chopped off baby hands.

    The law simply says that when a women is applying for welfare benefits, the biological father will be looked toward to support the child he helped produce. An express exception is given (just like in about 10 other states) for approved sperm donation procedures. If you allow ambiguity then the law becomes useless, since a precedent like "I had a contract, so welfare should not go after the bio father" will give plausable exemptions to nearly any situation where a pregnancy occurs, from the "freinds with benefits" to the "sniff it and hit it."

    It is not unjust to require a man who brings a child into the world to provide support.

  6. HeadSet


    Follow
    Befriend
    4 threads
    1,488 comments
    Williamsburg, VA

    16   2:16pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    turtledove says

    This child does have two parents... They just both happen to be female

    Interesting. Since you consider lesbian couple to be parents, do you think the state should go after the "ex" for child support before granting welfare? As I understand it, the mother applied for welfare because the supporting lesbian partner left.

    It would seem that lesbian advocates would support going after the ex, as it would put them on par with a hetero couple.

  7. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,062 threads
    13,600 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    17   2:35pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

    HeadSet says

    The Kansas law is hardly unjust, despite your absurd comparisons to slavery or chopped off baby hands.

    You missed the point. I wasn't comparing the Kansas law to slavery or chopped off baby hands. I was giving a counter-example to disprove your presumption that merely writing a law embodies the state with an inalienable right. Rights, not laws, are the a priori entity.

  8. 121212


    Follow
    Befriend
    83 threads
    687 comments
    male

    18   2:36pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike  

    HeadSet says

    What choice did Kansas have, except to go after the biological father?

    Regardless of the contract the parties have and the situation!

    This man has zero financial responsibility for this child, ZERO!

  9. 121212


    Follow
    Befriend
    83 threads
    687 comments
    male

    19   2:37pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

    HeadSet says

    Since you consider lesbian couple to be parents,

    It has nothing to do with the sex of the parents, the SPERM DONOR is not financially responsible!

  10. bgamall4


    Follow
    Befriend (11)
    1,260 threads
    7,972 comments
    64 male
    Las Vegas, NV
    bgamall4's website
    Premium

    20   2:37pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    121212 says

    This man has zero financial responsibility for this child, ZERO!

    Apparently not. That is, apparently he does have responsibility. We will see won't we.

  11. bgamall4


    Follow
    Befriend (11)
    1,260 threads
    7,972 comments
    64 male
    Las Vegas, NV
    bgamall4's website
    Premium

    21   2:38pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Man there must be a lot of sperm givers in this thread.

  12. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,062 threads
    13,600 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    22   2:39pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike  

    HeadSet says

    The law simply says that when a women is applying for welfare benefits, the biological father will be looked toward to support the child he helped produce.

    This is exactly why the law is unjust. It assumes that one man and one woman choose to have a child together, as oppose to two women choosing to have a child together. The dumb ass writers of the law didn't consider all the edge cases and wrote a buggy law.

    Here's another example. Bertha rapes Cathy with a giant dildo. But the law defines rape as "a man penetrating a woman against her will" rather than as "one person penetrating another against the other's will". That poor writing would, in effect, make it impossible to convict same-sex rapists.

    When laws are bad, they should be proactively changed. If the state stupidly attempts to enforce a law that is bad, the state should be punished.

  13. 121212


    Follow
    Befriend
    83 threads
    687 comments
    male

    23   2:40pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    bgamall4 says

    121212 says

    This man has zero financial responsibility for this child, ZERO!

    Apparently not. That is, apparently he does have responsibility. We will see won't we.

    This is a crazy nuts story, Kansas will not be allowed to set a precedent like this. CRAZY! Sperm Donors are not responsible for child support, what the fuck are they thinking.

  14. 121212


    Follow
    Befriend
    83 threads
    687 comments
    male

    24   2:42pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    HeadSet says

    It is not unjust to require a man who brings a child into the world to provide support.

    Your very foolish. This man was a surrogate SPERM DONOR!!!

  15. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,062 threads
    13,600 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    25   2:48pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike  

    HeadSet says

    It is not unjust to require a man who brings a child into the world to provide support.

    Of course it is unjust to require a sperm donor to provide financial support for a child when the donor and the legal parent or parents explicitly accepted the donation based on agreement that the sperm donor would not play a role in the child's upbringing. It is unjust because there is no consent!

    Consider the following scenario. Bob uses a condom while having sex with Emily. Neither intends to be a parent. After sex, Bob throws the condom out. Melissa, Emily's flatmate, takes the condom out of the trash and uses the sperm to impregnate herself. By your reasoning, Bob would be morally and ethically obligated to provide Melissa with child support payments and the state should force these payments on Bob. That's retarded.

    1. Consent to have sex does not equal consent to reproduce for either sex.
    2. Consent to donate a sperm or an egg (which also happens all the time) does not equal consent to raising a child.
    3. The genetic lineage of the child should not matter. The law should only be concern about who agreed (consented) to being the rightful parents of the child.

    Hell, if DNA is all that matters, why not make a twin brother pay child support for his brother's biological child?

  16. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,062 threads
    13,600 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    26   2:50pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    HeadSet says

    turtledove says

    This child does have two parents... They just both happen to be female

    Interesting. Since you consider lesbian couple to be parents, do you think the state should go after the "ex" for child support before granting welfare?

    This would actually be mostly justifiable as the "ex" did consent and accept parenthood of the child. The child was created for the benefit of the mother and her ex-partner.

    And unlike going after the father, going after the ex wouldn't be sexist or a violation of the 14th Amendment.

  17. thunderlips11


    Follow
    Befriend (13)
    263 threads
    5,192 comments

    27   2:51pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (4)   Dislike  

    HeadSet says

    It is not unjust to require a man who brings a child into the world to provide support.

    I'm sorry, this is misandry. The man is absolutely right: "No good deed goes unpunished." He donated his sperm so that a lesbian couple could obtain their dream of having a child without going through expensive sperm banks or adoption processes. I note nowhere in the article the couple is challenging him; just the state.

    Is the opposite the law? If a woman willingly gives up her child for adoption, or donates her eggs to bear a child for a gay male couple, can the adoptive parents or the state then turn around years later and insist on child support from that mother or the egg donor? Of course not. If the state tried to do so, there would be outrage and it wouldn't survive one second in the court system.

  18. 121212


    Follow
    Befriend
    83 threads
    687 comments
    male

    28   2:52pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    The one flaw in this case was the collection of sperm was not done correctly or by the correct individual. The legal paper work may have become invalid due to the collection method!

  19. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,062 threads
    13,600 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    29   2:52pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    121212 says

    It has nothing to do with the sex of the parents, the SPERM DONOR is not financially responsible!

    True. In the eyes of the law, sperm donation must not be any different than egg donation. Otherwise, it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

  20. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,062 threads
    13,600 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    30   2:53pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (4)   Dislike  

    bgamall4 says

    Man there must be a lot of sperm givers in this thread.

    One does not have to be a victim of an injustice to be appalled by it. One must simply value the rights of others as much as his own, or at least realize that in order to protect your own rights, you must protect everyone else's.

  21. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,062 threads
    13,600 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    31   2:55pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    thunderlips11 says

    I'm sorry, this is misandry. The man is absolutely right: "No good deed goes unpunished." He donated his sperm so that a lesbian couple could obtain their dream of having a child without going through expensive sperm banks or adoption processes. I note nowhere in the article the couple is challenging him; just the state.

    Exactly.

    thunderlips11 says

    Is the opposite the law? If a woman willingly gives up her child for adoption, or donates her eggs to bear a child for a gay male couple, can the adoptive parents or the state then turn around years later and insist on child support from that mother or the egg donor? Of course not. If the state tried to do so, there would be outrage and it wouldn't survive one second in the court system.

    Completely true. No state attorney or bureaucrat would even dare making the same case against an egg donator. Hence the obvious sexism.

    You either believe in equality under law or you don't.

  22. bgamall4


    Follow
    Befriend (11)
    1,260 threads
    7,972 comments
    64 male
    Las Vegas, NV
    bgamall4's website
    Premium

    32   3:22pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Dan8267 says

    One does not have to be a victim of an injustice to be appalled by it.

    It isn't injustice number 1 on my list. It likely is not my injustice number 100 either. Sorry. :))

  23. Quigley


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    55 threads
    2,109 comments
    Huntington Beach, CA

    33   4:40pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Am I the only person who thinks of this contract (two lesbians with the man) as unfair to the child? They, all three of them, conspired to conceive a child who would be arbitrarily deprived of its father. They made the decision, eyes wide open, to commit this wrong against that little girl, and are further perpetrating it by having the father be so entirely distant and uninvolved with what is, after all, his daughter!
    I think a child needs a father to have the best chance at life. A father may not give suck or provide a womb, but a father can be protector, provider, counselor, teacher, and friend to their child, if he is so inclined. Guys who don't want to be fathers should flush their jars of sperm rather than allow them to be used to create a child who is preordained to be abandoned by her father.

  24. Mark D


    Follow
    Befriend
    242 threads
    909 comments
    Simi Valley, CA

    34   5:16pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    every Tom Leykis student knows that a guy never sells his sperm. period.

    always wear condoms and flush them down the toilet yourself. no exceptions.

  25. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,062 threads
    13,600 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    35   5:37pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    bgamall4 says

    Dan8267 says

    One does not have to be a victim of an injustice to be appalled by it.

    It isn't injustice number 1 on my list. It likely is not my injustice number 100 either. Sorry. :))

    Irrelevant. Why tolerate even minor injustices in our legal system?

    Furthermore, your lack of empathy for other men does not make their rights any less important. Would you be so callous if the biological parent in question was a woman who donated her egg so that another couple could have a child?

  26. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,062 threads
    13,600 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    36   5:45pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Quigley says

    I think a child needs a father to have the best chance at life. A father may not give suck or provide a womb, but a father can be protector, provider, counselor, teacher, and friend to their child, if he is so inclined.

    In the not-so-distant future, both men and women will be able to have biological children without a member of the opposite sex. For example, a woman donates an egg or a stem cell is converted into an egg in a lab. The DNA is removed from the egg and the DNA of both mothers (or both fathers) is added to the egg. Then the egg is implanted into one of the mothers, a surrogate mother, or an artificial womb.

    In this inevitable scenario, the child will have either two biological mothers and zero biological fathers or two biological fathers and no biological mothers.

    And the state should have no right to prohibit this.

    Now one might argue that having a parent of each gender is advantageous, but having rich parents is even more adventurous, but that doesn't mean people of ordinary means should not have children. Similarly, even with the advantages of having bi-gender parental guidance, mono-gender parents should not be relegated to second class citizens. Plus, any such disadvantage is mitigated by having a close aunt or uncle.

  27. HeadSet


    Follow
    Befriend
    4 threads
    1,488 comments
    Williamsburg, VA

    37   8:40pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    thunderlips11 says

    I'm sorry, this is misandry.

    No, that is responsibility.

    It seems our viewpoint differs in how we see children. The gist of so many on this thread seems to be that children are no different than toys or dolls, in that children are acquired soley for the enjoyment of adults. Whether created by one night stand, Craig's List search for a donater to bypass "expensive" regulations, or even tots-in-pots imagineering, no thought need to given for the child's well being. And if the child you produced needs support, abandon it to the state, just like the "sperm doner" and the "ex" did.

  28. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,062 threads
    13,600 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    38   9:37pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    HeadSet says

    The gist of so many on this thread seems to be that children are no different than toys or dolls, in that children are acquired soley for the enjoyment of adults.

    That is not at all what anyone is saying. Nor did the donator abandon the child, the "ex" did. You cannot abandon what is not yours.

  29. Ceffer


    Follow
    Befriend
    19 threads
    3,876 comments
    Berkeley, CA

    39   1:01am Fri 4 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

    What about the roving bands of lesbian thugs who kidnap men and force them to give up their precious seed? Do those men have to support the children too?

    Do sperm banks pay sperm interest?

  30. zzyzzx


    Follow
    Befriend (10)
    861 threads
    7,317 comments
    Baltimore, MD

    40   7:21am Fri 4 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Mark D says

    always wear condoms and flush them down the toilet yourself. no exceptions.

    I used to work at a waste water treatment plant and I can personally verify that condoms are frequently flushed.

  31. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,062 threads
    13,600 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    41   7:37am Fri 4 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Ceffer says

    What about the roving bands of lesbian thugs who kidnap men and force them to give up their precious seed?

    Where are these roving bands of man-loving lesbians? I'm only interested in, er, avoiding them, yeah, avoiding them, so it's best to know where they can be found so I can avoid those areas.

  32. Quigley


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    55 threads
    2,109 comments
    Huntington Beach, CA

    42   8:42am Fri 4 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Dan, I think your idea of what lesbians are or look like is sadly off the mark. Most lesbians are at least 50-100 lbs overweight, are subject to a lot of depression, and have a history of rejection by men. I have one in my own family, and she fits the bill to a T. So do her girlfriends.
    I don't feel desire for such women, only a sort of pity, and perhaps concern that they find some happiness in their lives. Alas, my gender is peopled by many cruel men, and newly damaged women are created every day.

  33. Quigley


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    55 threads
    2,109 comments
    Huntington Beach, CA

    43   8:53am Fri 4 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Dan8267 says, "Hell, if DNA is all that matters, why not make a twin brother pay child support for his brother's biological child?"

    If you reject the idea of a soul, or spirit that makes a person other than merely the sum total of their DNA, then this makes perfect sense. Unless you are a hypocrite, you must admit that a maternal twins are essentially the same person! Therefore making one pay child support for the offspring of the other is perfectly reasonable. It matters not who donated the sperm, just that it came from the same biological creature.
    So, unless you actually disagree with the constant nattering on you do about Dawkins and his naturalist theories that reject any concept not rooted in physical matter, I don't see how you could make the quoted statement with a straight face!

  34. bgamall4


    Follow
    Befriend (11)
    1,260 threads
    7,972 comments
    64 male
    Las Vegas, NV
    bgamall4's website
    Premium

    44   9:00am Fri 4 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Dan8267 says

    Irrelevant. Why tolerate even minor injustices in our legal system?

    Furthermore, your lack of empathy for other men does not make their rights any less important. Would you be so callous if the biological parent in question was a woman who donated her egg so that another couple could have a child?

    Ok, fine, but apparently he failed to to through the proper legal channels.

  35. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,062 threads
    13,600 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    45   10:11am Fri 4 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Quigley says

    If you reject the idea of a soul, or spirit that makes a person other than merely the sum total of their DNA, then this makes perfect sense. Unless you are a hypocrite, you must admit that a maternal twins are essentially the same person!

    I do reject the ideal of a soul, but that does not mean a person is defined solely or even in part by his or her or its DNA. A person does not even require DNA or any kind of genetic code. That's your limited world view, not mine.

    I have no problem considering a sentient AI a person, and such an AI has no living components. What makes a person a person is a mind, not a body.

    Thus there is no hypocrisy in my view that the identical twin should not have to pay child support for his brother's offspring.

    Oh, and I haven't even gotten to the complexities introduced by Chimeras. What happens when the so-called biological dad's penis shoots out someone else's sperm? Guess what, that happens. There was a case when the U.S. court system wrongfully jailed a woman for welfare fraud and wrongfully took away her child simply because the egg her body produced did not have the same DNA as most of the rest of her body. So the court system assumed that the child wasn't hers even though she was the woman who got pregnant, gave birth, and raised the child.

  36. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,062 threads
    13,600 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    46   10:13am Fri 4 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    bgamall4 says

    Ok, fine, but apparently he failed to to through the proper legal channels.

    What does that mean? I hope you are not proposing that the state can violate a person's right if that person doesn't jump through the right hoops to protect his own rights. I'd hate for our society to behave like that.

    Rights are way more important than legal procedures.

  37. futuresmc


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    1 threads
    466 comments
    Buffalo, NY

    47   10:57am Fri 4 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Dan8267 says

    Completely true. No state attorney or bureaucrat would even dare making the same case against an egg donator. Hence the obvious sexism.

    You either believe in equality under law or you don't.

    The problem with this arguement is that an egg donor (not donator) can't donate without extensive medical involvement. It's biologocially impossible due to the complexity of the procedure, so as long as the paperwork is in order beforehand, the intent of all parties is clear if the process is even started. Sperm donation can be done in a bathroom with a Playboy. This leaves room for legal ambiguity which too many deadbeats who did create a child intentionally but then changed their minds later on would use to get out of child support payments if it were overturned.

  38. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,062 threads
    13,600 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    48   11:34am Fri 4 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    futuresmc says

    Sperm donation can be done in a bathroom with a Playboy. This leaves room for legal ambiguity which too many deadbeats who did create a child intentionally but then changed their minds later on would use to get out of child support payments if it were overturned.

    That's a load of crap. The terms of donation are always written out in detail in the agreements that both the donor and the recipient must sign. And that is certainly the case in the article posted.

    The degree of difficulty in producing the product (egg or sperm) is irrelevant to this legal issue.

  39. futuresmc


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    1 threads
    466 comments
    Buffalo, NY

    49   11:52am Fri 4 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Dan8267 says

    futuresmc says

    Sperm donation can be done in a bathroom with a Playboy. This leaves room for legal ambiguity which too many deadbeats who did create a child intentionally but then changed their minds later on would use to get out of child support payments if it were overturned.

    That's a load of crap. The terms of donation are always written out in detail in the agreements that both the donor and the recipient must sign. And that is certainly the case in the article posted.

    The degree of difficulty in producing the product (egg or sperm) is irrelevant to this legal issue.

    What passses for your arguement is a load of crap, Dan. the man in this case had an agreement and look how little that mattered? How many men sign birth certificates for children they intend to support when they sign but later find they have no interest or can't at a later date? That's why written contracts are a poor test of intent. Production difficulties are indeed relevant as you can't donate eggs without complex medical procedures and monitoring. You can donate sperm that way, so intent at the time of the contract's signing is wishy washy unless you go through a sperm bank. Now, I am no fan of sperm banks as I think they put in a lot of unnecesary regulartory padding and don't regulate in areas that would be useful, but by going through them you clearly show intent to merely donate without parenting. Private donations leave the door open to interpretation, even when a contract is written up. Using a bank is a good test of the biological parents' intentions as the effort required to keep the legal wall between donor and parent standing is diffinitive. Is there a better test, probably, but the issue you were posing was gender equity in this issue, and biologically there is no comparison.

  40. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,062 threads
    13,600 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    50   12:23pm Fri 4 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

    futuresmc says

    What passses for your arguement is a load of crap, Dan. the man in this case had an agreement and look how little that mattered? How many men sign birth certificates for children they intend to support when they sign but later find they have no interest or can't at a later date? That's why written contracts are a poor test of intent.

    I don't follow your philosophy at all. All I can say is that I'm grateful that you don't make the law as your laws would be highly unjust.

    It appears we're disagreeing on basic issues of principles. I am pro-rights, you are pro-state power. We cannot reach an agreement if we differ so greatly on what is more important.

    So let's just agree to disagree.

« First     « Previous comments    

Premium member bgamall4 is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email
Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 554 milliseconds to create.