Posted on 08/23/2005 4:33:44 AM PDT by grundle
Look at the child's DNA and tell me the child has "no claim on the father" for support.
What I am saying is that reproduction cannot be a hit and run business for men or women. Men should not donate to banks unless they are willing to support their kids. They are not victims except, maybe, of their own greed to get a few easy bucks without thought to the new life they'd father in the process.
As to the woman having a "right" to abort without the man's consent, that's a red herring - two wrongs don't make a right. I don't agree with that "right" either. My gosh, it's like listening to two kids fight. "But she can abort if she wants to! But he did it in a cup and said I could do with it what I want! Waaa!! Waaa!!"
There should not be sperm banks. There should not be in vitro fertilization making a dozen throw-away embryos for every one that implants. There should not be children outside of marriage, and if there are, both parents should support them. There is no man lower than one who makes a bastard then won't support it.
Anonymous sperm donors helped strangers have babies through non-sexual medical procedures with absolutely ZERO expectation that their time honored legal contracts would be invalidated by a judge.
That’s why they did not “knowingly enter the business of parenthood” as you say, at least not like this.
Stop it--you're making sense, and we just can't have that now! ;)
IVF is just mixing the egg and sperm together.. artificial insemination by ANOTHER man who isn't your husband is adultery.
Out of sight, out of mind my friend.
Then if the rules change, there should be a law. And previous laws and contracts should be honored.
Either that, or don’t claim to be against judicial activism when it supports the right’s agenda.
1. Oral agreements are not worth the paper they are written on.
2. A mother can not waive child support, it does not belong to her it belongs to the child.
3. This was not an anonymous donation. The anonymous system is set up that way so identification is impossible and thus you can't know who to sue for support.
-In theory, if a sperm bank has a record of the actual donor and they can be traced, you CAN sue for support.
So, if I donate my sperm to a sperm bank and it is selected by a women to get pregnant and she later discovers that it was my sperm she should be able to get child support from me? I don't think so.
The judge didn’t base his ruling on any of that. He simply ruled that contracts between the mother and sperm donor can’t be made, leaving the door open to all you think this isn’t about.
I'll agree with no kids outside of wedlock, but that has not been the way of things throughout human history.
I will stick with belief, if the woman can abort without th man's consent, then the man has no obligation to support the child.
I would.
Marriage and the creation of a child are not, nor have ever been, nor will ever be, mutually exclusive. However the responsibilty to the child remains regardless of the standing of the parents...
"Any woman fool enough to make a child out of wedlock, the father(s) should be free of any responsibility. "
You obviously believe that if a woman's pregnant it "her fault" and that the man has no responsibility....guess the little woman deserved it in your world....Oh wait...I forgot the child....oh never mind...let's not bother ourselves with those little trivialities...
NeverGore :^)
I believe I said all that.
Mother can not make agreement, oral contract worthless etc.
I see the result of this case as a good thing.
Eliminate anonymous donation, make all donation carry legal responsibility.
Why punish the child for a dance that requires 2 people? You do realize there are many, MANY children born out of wedlock during relationships. And what about single mothers (and fathers) who are abandoned by the other parent? You speak with such a broad generality when in fact, you know that almost every circumstance is different.
You preach a pollyannish line, but it simply isn't reality- as sad as it is.
This case wasn't about equity in settlements but responsibility to the child by the biological parents....
However your point is well taken and the family court system is well out of balance when it comes to the financial responsibilities of male vs. female.
NeverGore :^)
You mean you should have the right to reproduce but not support the child? I don't think so.
I think this case is different, it wasn't anonymous sperm. The guy had a friggin' verbal contract, he was playing diu lawyer, he had to be a moron. The husband was right to run as far away as possible.
I don't understand why they used artifical insemination, unless the donor was smart enough to realize that if he did it the old fashioned way and was later hailed into court his verbal contract would be worse than worthless.
If someone spotted you an egg, I'd say the same thing. Do it at your own risk. I'm lost as to why in the world anyone would donate in the first place. Firstly, it's the ultimate narcissistic act. Secondly, I can't see having a biological son or daughter out there and never knowing it. But, perhaps that's just me.
My thoughts exactly.
So married couples who use this alternative to have children- with their own egg and sperm, are adulterers? *SIGH*
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.