Posted on 01/02/2013 11:10:42 AM PST by NormsRevenge
He did not have sex with the woman. He placed his sample in a plastic cup. But he did so outside the auspices of a sperm bank or doctor’s office.
Guess the sperm donor clinics may be watching this closely, as well as all the guys who’ve donated over the years.
SO now will couples where an egg was donated be able to get child support from the woman who donated the egg, if they split up or are on public assistance?
I would think so if we’re treating everyone EQUAL here.
we practice to deceive conceive... ;-)
Very good ... you win.
The words of one of FR’s resident Padres (a title of respect for ALL Chaplains who serve our military), and often very right, Padre xzins wrote:
It’s a good thing for the FATHER (alias: sperm donor) to be required by law to support his own child.
This underscores a couple of conservative principles:
1. Homosexual couples are not procreative. This is the heart and soul of one major argument against homosexual marriage.
2. Ultimate Responsibility for one’s own procreative activity despite odd schemes and agreements to the contrary.
3. Unnatural marriage deprives a child of a role model whether male or female.
The words of one of FR’s resident Padres (a title of respect for ALL Chaplains who serve our military), and often very right, Padre xzins wrote:
It’s a good thing for the FATHER (alias: sperm donor) to be required by law to support his own child.
This underscores a couple of conservative principles:
1. Homosexual couples are not procreative. This is the heart and soul of one major argument against homosexual marriage.
2. Ultimate Responsibility for one’s own procreative activity despite odd schemes and agreements to the contrary.
3. Unnatural marriage deprives a child of a role model whether male or female.
instead of whatever (I don’t want to know) went on here.
If Marotta wants to see his daughter, he only has to petition the court for parenting time. The contract is not binding on the state and is, probably, against public policy. If he were to ask, the court would find a way to integrate him into the child’s life over time and he would have regular parenting time. He has a constitutional right to know his biological child. The birth mother, on the other hand, could if she wished, probably exclude the “other mother” from the little girl’s life. I say “probably” because the issue of “psychological parent” has not been fully litigated in Kansas. A psychological parent is with whom the child has bonded. Kennedy in the landmark case Trullinger wrote a defense which set the ground work for this theory. In other states, if the court finds that the child has bonded to a third party, like domestic partner whether of same or different sex, then it can order visitation with that third party.
Leni
A child has a right to a whole constellation of natural goods from his or her parents: his identity, his name, his place in a kinship system, nurture, education, care, provision and inheritance. All of these begin with the first right: the right to a mother and father: the people who constituted his genetic identity and brought him into being. You can't sign away what your child needs to survive and flourish in this world.
If you don't want to be a father, make double-dang sure your sperm doesn't get inserted into a woman's genital tract.
That's simple enough, isn't it?
I'll vote for the child's rights every time.
Nope they still go after "deep pockets" daddykins. Meanwhile, the fatherless minority community gets a free pass (can't get CS from under the table illegal drug sales)
There isn’t any order to pay “couple.” The other woman has no legal right to the support even if she still lived with the bio mom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.