patrick.net

Raw says

You guys have a malfunctioning genetic code. There is only one way natural selection deals with a malfunction......recycle bin.

Just remember, countless species have been driven to extinction due to overpopulation and resource depletion. Natural selection is a very fickle tool.

Kansas sperm donor ordered to pay child support prepares for battle

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/31/kansas-sperm-donor-to-same-sex-couple-readies-for-child-support-fight/#ixzz2GenDAkaQ

Consent to donate sperm is not the same as consent to finance the upbringing of the kid. The idiots suing him should be made to pay 10 times the asked for "child support" to the man.

Shit like this ultimately harms future users of sperm banks as successful men are much less likely to donate. So instead of getting this guy's sperm,

you get this guy's sperm,

The greedy assholes behind the lawsuit are simply ruining the system they benefited from for all future lesbians. What a bunch of scumbag hypocrites!

Furthermore, men will start insisting on completely and absolute anonymity for their donations which means the child will never know its medical history or be able to connect to his or her biological relatives when he reaches adulthood. Yet another reason to throw out this suit with severe prejudice.

"Do you know folks who had kids to have somebody to sell high to?"
http://occupywallst.org/your-collective-brainwashability-is-repulsive/

Dan8267 says

The idiots suing him should be made to pay 10 times the asked for "child support" to the man.

Those Idiots you speak of, are the State of Kansas. I know it's FOX and all, but you should still read it.

The Lezbo couple have since broke up, and the dude of the couple was left with the kids, and she is now ill and unable to work since March of this year. They also adopted 6 Kids, that's 6 freaking kids, as some social experiement while her and her Mangirl set up house and tried to play Man and Wife. One of them grew bored and stuck the other one with all of the crap they created. Just like for realzies. She is now filling for financial aide, and one of the tools States now have to help with welfare of needy Kids, is to go after the Father of the kids, even if the Mother doesn't cooperate. Justice is blind and all of that. Which is WHY it should be VERY important that Liberals think more about the shit they try to ram through in blind legislation. Because you never know when it will bite you in the ass. I can only hope this Clown voted for Obama and has "Legalize gay marriage" T-Shirt.

CaptainShuddup says

I know it's FOX and all, but you should still read it.

I'll admit it. Since it was Fox, I didn't read it. That propaganda organization states so many falsehoods that I automatically ignore links to it.

But, ok, so it's not the legal guardians of the child who are at fault. The individual assholes in the Kentucky government who filed the suit each should be made to pay the donor 10 times the amount they asked for. Garnish their wages and throw them in jail if they fail to pay this amount.

Turnabout is fair play.

Here's a solution: Don't donate your sperm. There are plenty of kids that need adopting. What a narcissistic practice that is.

Marotta — who has relinquished all parental rights, including financial responsibility, under the 2009 agreement — said he’s preparing for a lengthy legal fight that has already cost him several thousand dollars. He expects it will likely “put a damper on things” for other people considering the same move

The state of Kentucky should also be made to pay this guy's legal fees regardless of the verdict simply for filing this suit. And if they lose, which they should, they should also pay this guy 100 times his legal fees as compensation for the duress he endured.

Moderate Infidel says

Here's a solution: Don't donate your sperm. There are plenty of kids that need adopting. What a narcissistic practice that is.

The exact same thing can be said about all reproduction regardless of whether or not the sperm was donated.

Dan8267 says

Moderate Infidel says

Here's a solution: Don't donate your sperm. There are plenty of kids that need adopting. What a narcissistic practice that is.

The exact same thing can be said about all reproduction regardless of whether or not the sperm was donated.

True, but if you control who the sperm is going into then you have no excuses later. Assuming your putting your sperm into a lady because you are choosing to procreate. If not then you must accept the consequences.

Moderate Infidel says

True, but if you control who the sperm is going into then you have no excuses later.

Who said this donor is making excuses? He consented to donating his sperm, not to paying for the child's upbringing. To argue that he "must accept the consequences", whatever undisclosed consequences you are implying, is like arguing that a woman who dresses provocatively deserves to get raped. It's a completely bogus argument.

Consent to be a DNA donor is not consent to be a financial donor. The legal financial liability rests solely in the legal guardians who agreed to raise the child at their expense. The "consequences" were spelled out explicitly and precisely in a black-and-white contract.

The state has no right to demand any money from the donor, period. The state is simply trying to use the violence of the state to extort money from someone. This should be illegal.

I decided to not have kids several years ago and had a vasectomy. I still think it's one of the best decisions of my life.

A couple of months ago I came across my ex wife at the grocery store. We divorced 20+ years ago, part of it due to my reluctance to have kids right away (I was still "on the fence" at that time).

After the divorce, I chose to put the lion's share of my time, energy and dollars into getting my college education culminating in my Master's (I'm not waving my own flag here, its just that I don't know if I would have pulled-off my GPA let alone do it at all had I opted for children). Promply after graduation I secured a Professional career, which I'm still happily engaged in.

One of the things that struck me in my years at college were the plethora of harried-looking single Mothers trying to balance single life, kids and college. I tutored many of them and got the inside scoop on the soul-sucking lifestyle most of them led-which really opened my eyes.

So I see my wife at the grocery store a couple months back, and she looked about 10 years beyond her age. A lot of pain in her eyes and utterly exhausted looking. She then confided in me that her two Daughters were hopelessly addicted to drugs, one in rehab, the other they were trying to track down to force into rehab. During the conversation, she would remark on how good I looked, which felt nice, but more importantly, bolstered the decision I made years ago; instead of having kids, which I believe is estimated to cost between 150-250K over 18 years (add to that figure for each additional child), I opted the more hedonistic route of economic independence and the freedom it offers.

Some say not having kids is "selfish." I believe people can have kids for "selfish" reasons as well, and am mystified we live in a country where you have to buy a "license" to go catch a fish, but any completely lazy, clueless moron--not fit to raise a hamster let alone a child--can make a baby at will.

I'm not knocking having kids, in fact I believe its probably one of the most rewarding and fulfilling experiences life can offer and am aware that some families are able to live comfortably economically and are able to avoid many of the uncontrollable negatives other families endure from raising kids. Nevertheless, looking at the macro-political-economic environment over the last 30 years, I opted for a different path.

DOC

Moderate Infidel says

Procreating and multiplying is what living organisms do.

Accept your function.

Existence precedes essence.

We need a child license system.

Or better yet... cap-and-trade birth permit.

We need to abolish the child support system.

Women need to think twice before allowing themselves to be impregnated.

Be careful what you wish for! All of those unwanted children make our clothing, clean Newt Gingrich's schools, and fill a vital role in the sex tourism trade.

Peter P says

We need to abolish the child support system.

Women need to think twice before allowing themselves to be impregnated.

Actually what we need are:

1) condoms that don't suck (no pun intended).
2) encourage all men to have vasectomies until they are REALLY, REALLY sure they want kids
3) release a male birth control pill that works:
http://theweek.com/article/index/232186/a-male-birth-control-pill-that-doesnt-kill-sex-drive
4) public service announcements showing men losing their shirts to child support.

Dr Strangelove says

am mystified we live in a country where you have to buy a "license" to go catch a fish, but any completely lazy, clueless moron--not fit to raise a hamster let alone a child--can make a baby at will.

I was pretty shocked about that too when the hospital just handed over our first child a day after the birth and said bye.

The only thing they checked on was that we had an infant car seat.

New Renter says

Peter P says

We need to abolish the child support system.

Women need to think twice before allowing themselves to be impregnated.

Actually what we need are:

1) condoms that don't suck (no pun intended).

2) encourage all men to have vasectomies until they are REALLY, REALLY sure they want kids

3) release a male birth control pill that works:

http://theweek.com/article/index/232186/a-male-birth-control-pill-that-doesnt-kill-sex-drive

4) public service announcements showing men losing their shirts to child support.

None of that would decrease the number of kids born, as you are targeting males. Unless you take away the right to reproduce and can enforce sterilization, there will always be one male willing and able to impregnate a thousand women. Nothing less than 100% prevention of all males from reproducing will put a dent in reproduction as the one guy you don't stop will handle all the demand.

If your goal is to lower the birth rate, you have to address female reproductive opportunity and that's a lot less politically acceptable. Nevertheless, it's the only effective strategy as it takes a woman 9 months to produce a child whereas a guy only spends 5 seconds doing his part.

Dan8267 says

Who said this donor is making excuses? He consented to donating his sperm, not to paying for the child's upbringing. To argue that he "must accept the consequences",

Out of context buddy. I meant if he knowingly puts his sperm in someone then he accepts the consequences.

Dan8267 says

whereas a guy only spends 5 seconds doing his part.

This is where a condom might help! It makes you last longer. Who are you? Charles Bukowski?

Moderate Infidel says

Out of context buddy. I meant if he knowingly puts his sperm in someone then he accepts the consequences.

The consequences, as I stated above, were explicitly listed in the contract and financial commitment was not one of them. The state has no right to impose this after the fact.

It is perfectly legitimate for a man and a woman to agree to reproduce through sperm donation without any other commitment, responsibilities, or rights for the man. If both parties willingly consent, hell seek out, this arrangement, then the state has absolutely no right to interfere with it. In fact, such interference prevents other people in the future from exercising their right to make such an arrangement.

Moderate Infidel says

This is where a condom might help! It makes you last longer. Who are you? Charles Bukowski?

You've missed the point entirely. A man who wants to father a thousand children -- certainly not me! -- can easily do so at 5 seconds a pop. And there certainly are plenty of men out there who do want to spread their seed like that. The point is that it only takes a single male with such intentions to completely undo the effectiveness of all of New Renter's proposals.

Dan8267 says

You've missed the point entirely

I think that would be you sir.
You didn't get my ultra hip Bukowski reference.

Dan8267 says

None of that would decrease the number of kids born, as you are targeting males. Unless you take away the right to reproduce and can enforce sterilization, there will always be one male willing and able to impregnate a thousand women. Nothing less than 100% prevention of all males from reproducing will put a dent in reproduction as the one guy you don't stop will handle all the demand.

That's kind of like saying nobody should buy a fuel efficient car because all it takes is one asshole in an out-of-tune 6 MPG 1970 Olds 455 to undo all the fuel savings of 20 Volt drivers. That the Olds driver will drive that car no matter WHAT the other drivers do so the Volt drivers might as well dump the Volts and buy Hummers for the same price. The Volt driver saves gas, gets a more comfortable car and may even get to use the carpool lane passing the asshole stuck in traffic.

Dr Strangelove says

So I see my wife at the grocery store a couple months back, and she looked about 10 years beyond her age. A lot of pain in her eyes and utterly exhausted looking. She then confided in me that her two Daughters were hopelessly addicted to drugs, one in rehab, the other they were trying to track down to force into rehab. During the conversation, she would remark on how good I looked, which felt nice, but more importantly, bolstered the decision I made years ago; instead of having kids, which I believe is estimated to cost between 150-250K over 18 years (add to that figure for each additional child), I opted the more hedonistic route of economic independence and the freedom it offers.

People tell me that I look 10-15 years younger than I am. I make a good salary for my profession, and neither of my kids are in rehab or drug addicted. My point is that the point that you're at in your life might be due to lack of children or it might be in spite of not having children.

I believe that my life is richer because of my kids, and have wonderful memories with them that are more valuable than anything else I own.

They were horrible investments - children are selfish little creatures who are want lots of stuff, and as a parent you get it for them. And here's the kicker - you actually want to get it for them. In fact, you go out of the way to get them stuff, and pay them attention and give them your time even if you don't have it. You go to events that they're interested in or participating in, and you pretend to enjoy the movies they love and...

Well, I think you get the point. Kids are awesome.

But if you don't want them, don't have them. The lawsuit for the sperm donor is bullshit, because the guy didn't participate in the process and had no relationship with the women involved. He shouldn't be held responsible at all.

I wonder if there will be a "Make love, not babies" campaign. :-)

Yes, children are for most a financial burden and from that standpoint a poor investment. They also crimp and determine much of your social life for years. They bring every cold and flu home and spread it to you and their siblings. the list of negatives goes on and on.

In the end they can change you by bringing you out of your world of vanity and self love to something different in your relationship with another person. This relationship must be experienced to be understood it goes beyond the love one might experience with a lover, it is of a different level. So if you are satisfied with your life and don't want to change don't have children

However, children also provide something else that has virtually no downside, cannot be acquired without them, and are truly wonderful. The payback for the burden imposed by raising children...grandchildren.

rdm says

The payback for the burden imposed by raising children...grandchildren.

When I get mine, I will spoil the shit outta them and send 'em home to mommy & daddy. Can't wait.

The adult relationship I have with my kids is pretty awesome, too.

New Renter says

4) public service announcements showing men losing their shirts to child support.

Awesome! I think you could do a lot with this one. I would include testimonials.

Kids are an economic externalize, since we need them for the correct function of all society. Let's internalize it and make it rational. Higher tax rate after retirement for those without kids.

Dr Strangelove says

am mystified we live in a country where you have to buy a "license" to go catch a fish, but any completely lazy, clueless moron--not fit to raise a hamster let alone a child--can make a baby at will.

I was pretty shocked about that too when the hospital just handed over our first child a day after the birth and said bye.

The only thing they checked on was that we had an infant car seat.

Next time make sure you check there return policy too.

elliemae says

Well, I think you get the point. Kids are awesome.

Yes!

The child-haters in this thread, will be bitter old Ebenezers chasing kids off their lawn. Their lack of contribution to the gene pool will be mourned by nobody.

Vicente says

elliemae says

Well, I think you get the point. Kids are awesome.

Yes!

The child-haters in this thread, will be bitter old Ebenezers chasing kids off their lawn. Their lack of contribution to the gene pool will be mourned by nobody.

I think our problem is that too many contribute to gene pool, even those who shouldn't. And later their spawn goes off shooting up normal kids in NewTown, CT.

More from the HAR! files.

An Arizona couple seeking a divorce hit an unusual snag that could prevent the marriage from legally being dissolved.

A judge is questioning whether a same-sex marriage ban bars him from ending the union — or even recognizing its validity — because the husband was born a woman and underwent a sex change but retained female reproductive organs and gave birth to three children.

Thomas and Nancy Beatie are eager to end their nine-year marriage. But their divorce plans stalled when Maricopa County Family Court Judge Douglas Gerlach said in late June that he was unable to find any legal authority defining a man as someone who can give birth. Gerlach has questioned whether the union was a same-sex marriage.

The judge is expected to issue a decision in early February.

CaptainShuddup says

Those Idiots you speak of, are the State of Kentucky. I know it's FOX and
all, but you should still read it.

Perhaps-but Kentucky is not a hotbed of liberalism and neither is Kansas. Here in Kansas, they were suing a 19 year army veteran for child support. The poor guy was married back in 1995 and wifeee cheated on him and had a baby with another man. He divorced, proved by DNA that child was not his and married again and had 3 kids. Never had a relationship with that kid. But the first wife went on welfare and kansas is suing him for child support -because of "presumed" fatherhood. That is the law and I believe it is the same in FL too?? They were reforming the law in kansas, and I think this sperm donor law needs to be reformed too.

Now in the liberal CA, it ain't so-if it ain't your baby and you prove it-you don't pay. While you might be happy about gay or staright or Obummer-it simply is not right.

http://cjonline.com/stories/012109/sta_379727641.shtml

If Social Security gets axed or privatized, it changes the whole equation about kids being an investment...

lostand confused says

Now in the liberal CA, it ain't so-if it ain't your baby and you prove it-you don't pay.

is Cali the only state where presumption of paternity is not law?

An article on Parenting and Happiness:
http://nymag.com/news/features/67024/

instead of "investing" $250K in a child, put that money in a mutual fund, and use the interest to pay someone to come to your house once/twice a week to talk to you when you are older. you would get more bang for your buck. he/she may even clean the house for you.

that and "investing" in a marriage is like buying a stock whose company has a 50% chance of going bankrupted.

My investment in my daughter has paid dividends.
Maybe you are investing your sperm/egg with the wrong investment vehicle.