Posted on 10/28/2005 6:07:22 PM PDT by neverdem
We can usually sympathize with one or another party to a dispute: one is usually more in the right—or less in the wrong—than the other. But with the breakdown of accepted conventions, it increasingly happens that neither side arouses our sympathies.
Take a recent case in Sweden, where a lesbian couple wished to have children. An understanding and liberal-minded male friend agreed to donate his sperm, and three children were born to one of the two women between 1992 and 1996. But then relations between the two women deteriorated, and they split up.
The mother of the children found herself alone and in difficult straits. Who would support her, in her—and her children’s—time of need? Her former lover was unwilling, because—after all—she was no relation of the children. The sperm donor had made it clear from the first that he had no wish to be a father in any but the most literal biological sense; he thought he was merely doing the couple a favor. He therefore felt no moral obligation to support the children, and his conscience was clear.
Nevertheless, the government’s department of social security—the potential surrogate parent of every child—sued to force the sperm donor to pay. After a case lasting four years, he found himself obliged henceforth to support the mother and children financially.
The president of the Swedish Federation for Sexual Equality declared the legal decision an outrage. “It is scandalous,” he said. “The man has been condemned to be a father even though he did not take the decision to have the children. Above all, one of the women who took part in that decision has been absolved of all responsibility. If one desires equality of rights for lesbians, it is anomalous that it should not be she who was obliged to support the children financially.”
It would take considerable space to elucidate all the errors in the president’s statement. But I think that the language of rights, and above all of equal rights, is what leads us into this sordid legal and moral swamp. If women have a “right” to children, in the sense that not having them if they want them is an infringement of their rights, then of course lesbian women can no longer accept childlessness as the natural consequence of their condition. Let it not be said that new medical technology is responsible for this change in attitude, incidentally: the kind of artificial insemination offered in a domestic setting by the sperm donor has been possible for a very long time. No, the culprit here is the idea that the fulfilment of our desires, no matter what our condition, is a right. As for the well-being of the children in this case—beyond the provision of sufficient financial support for them—that seems to have entered into no one’s thnking.
A plague on all their houses, then: the idea that one “condemns” a man to support children is in itself both revealing and chilling.
Yeah, and how about the other part of the Lesbian team absolving all responsibility? Real good person there, NOT
Men in NJ have been found liable for support even for children that have been proven to not be their children.
Homosexuality?
In states in the U.S. that have alimony, the higher-earning spouse is expected to pay.
Actually, that's really an old principle from common law -- a child born to a married woman is the husband's responsibility.
The State just wants to find the nearest 'scapegoat' so as to avoid any responsibility on its part.
"The legal reasoning is that child support is a right of the child rather than the parent, and as such any contract by the parent waiving it is invalid. I can't speak for Sweden, but US courts have upheld the principle on numerous occassions."
Yes, it's the right of the child. That's why the non-related lesbian should have to pay child support. I was under a different impression, though admittedly a very vague one, about the rights of sperm donors in the U.S. I mean, I realize it's not good to have a fatherless household, but forcing this guy to pay won't change that; all it will do is screw over this guy who made clear from the very beginning what he was doing. He might be a liberal douche, but that doesn't change the financial responsibility of the lesbian who was with the mother at the time.
Why shouldn't the other lesbian have to pay?
I'm familiar with the idea of paternity fraud, and while I realize that there are no guarantees (particularly in states where any children of a marriage are legally assumed to be the offspring of the husband), a vasectomy and remaining faithful to any hypothetical Mrs Slings and Arrows should minimize (albeit not eliminate) my risk.
"The right to be supported by parents to the extent possible is possessed by the child. The court is simply enforcing the child's right. The father's belief that he was doing the mother a favor is of no moment."
Why shouldn't the other lesbian pay?
True, but in America, we aren't supposed to be ruled by common law.
Well, you got me there.
A vascetomy should do the trick. *Shudder*
In some states it WON'T - and that's part of what's screwed up.
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Hoist by his own petard. What is a petard, anyway? A rope of some kind?
I feel very sorry for the children, and like kicking the behinds of everyone else in the miserable story. Using children as pawns. Like people who say "I'd enjoy having children." Well, sometimes they're "enjoyable" and sometimes they're not. Having children because you think it'd be fun is not a reason to have children.
Freepmail me and DirtyHarryY2K if you want on/off this pinglist.
Well written article!
Adoption can replace one parent with another. The child's right is then transferred to another adult. If the other lesbian had adopted the child, I think she should have to pay.
That thought crossed my mind but to do so would mean that they had a legitimate relationship. They were playing house. Posting HTML
Well Tax-chick, that is certainly right. What was I thinking? 8^)
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.