Kansas wants sperm donor to pay child support - WTF???

[klamath]

That's just stupid. Child is not the age of consent, and could not sign a contract regardless. The dykes were the legal guardians and responsible. They should be held accountable, not the father.

Key word......"Father"

 

[specsaregood]

I have said this before and I say it again, a child is at the mercy of his/her parents, there are no contracts that protect a child from an irresponsible and un-involved parent.

Just as there are no contracts that can take away from the fact that the man is the father of the child and thus responsible for its life.

 

[Ranger29860]

Just as there are no contracts that can take away from the fact that the man is the father of the child and thus responsible for its life.

So there are no circumstances where the parent of a child either male or female would not be responsible for the child?

 

[LibForestPaul]

Sorry it is his biological kid. It is not the biological kid of the gay lover... Don't donate sperm to the creation of a child if you don't want to support it.

unless you pay $10k to some guy with a license who paid off the state legislatures, than it does not matter if you are the biological parent.

 

[specsaregood]

So there are no circumstances where the parent of a child either male or female would not be responsible for the child?

I suppose if some unknown person ruffled through your garbage and took a used condom and then proceeded to get pregnant from your sperm you wouldn't be responsible since you had no knowledge or consent to their appropriation of your dna. Of course that is different than this situation where the specific purpose of his donation was to create a child.

 

[juleswin]

Just as there are no contracts that can take away from the fact that the man is the father of the child and thus responsible for its life.

Naturally the vast majority of men will perform this task without the need of a contract. For the small percentage of men who need a contract for this, it is the responsibility of the woman to make sure the man is full on board with the caring of the child. In essence adults and women especially should make sure things like this are sorted out before getting pregnant or they risk financial ruin and end up on the streets begging for money.

Again, life is cruel.

 

[acptulsa]

Well, at least it's his child.

So far one state--Florida, and if I remember correctly, under Jeb Bush--was dumb enough to order up across-the-board DNA testing of paternity cases on their files because they were tired of two out of every three 'fathers' claiming the child wasn't theirs. Guess what happened? They discovered that about two out of three 'fathers' forced to pay child support weren't the fathers of those children. So much for the grand scheme of encouraging men to take responsibility and insist on birth control.

Thank God government got involved in procreation and are rewarding the responsible and punishing the irresponsible. It does such a bang-up job we obviously need government to get into every little detail of our lives so we can learn the advantages of responsibility and the perils of irresponsibility in everything we do.

Hopefully, we'll all follow the government's excellent example in fiscal matters and stop piling up debt, too. Not to mention........

Oh, and what happened in Florida? The state came down on the side of justice, righteousness and sanity--and insisted the non-fathers keep paying child support. From each, according to his ability to pay, to each according to his ability to make sluts squeal. Marx would be so proud.

Well, at least episodes like that serve as a warning to us, so we won't be dumb enough to turn over other areas of life to the government to micromismanage. Like health care, for example--thanks to such fiascoes, we'll never be dumb enough to turn health care over to the government. Thank God for that.

 

[specsaregood]

Again, life is cruel.

you keep repeating that; but I don't see what it has to do with the topic being discussed. is it just something you like to say? Life being cruel has no effect on the fact that the man is partly responsible for the child being created.

 

[tod evans]

It is not the governments place to look after children or their parents.

This whole mess boils down to government being involved in charity and family life, two places it certainly doesn't have any business.

This idea that tax dollars should support parents and children is fundamentally wrong and I don't know how to get the bleeding hearts off it...

The ideas of welfare and family court are both repugnant to me. Yet another shining example of government screwing up everything it touches..

 

[juleswin]

you keep repeating that; but I don't see what it has to do with the topic being discussed. is it just something you like to say? Life being cruel has no effect on the fact that the man is partly responsible for the child being created.

It means that sometimes bad things will happen to innocent children solely because of the actions of his/her parents and nobody will be held responsible for it. Even if the father is a multi millionaire he should be able to walk scott free if he was able to sign a contract with the mother saying just that. You on the other hand believe that said contract means nothing now because the child's welfare is in danger.

Btw, it is also something I like saying

 

[juleswin]

It is not the governments place to look after children or their parents.

This whole mess boils down to government being involved in charity and family life, two places it certainly doesn't have any business.

This idea that tax dollars should support parents and children is fundamentally wrong and I don't know how to get the bleeding hearts off it...

The ideas of welfare and family court are both repugnant to me. Yet another shining example of government screwing up everything it touches..

Exactly, this involuntary creates unintended consequences that make the initially reason for their involvement look like peanuts. The high rate of single motherhood is just one many

rep+

 

[klamath]

It means that sometimes bad things will happen to innocent children solely because of the actions of his/her parents and nobody will be held responsible for it. Even if the father is a multi millionaire he should be able to walk scott free if he was able to sign a contract with the mother saying just that. You on the other hand believe that said contract means nothing now because the child's welfare is in danger.

Btw, it is also something I like saying

I guess the father didn't walk free. It is a cruel world......sucks to be him.

 

[specsaregood]

You on the other hand believe that said contract means nothing now because the child's welfare is in danger.

Please point out where I claimed that? No, I was exploring the notion that the contract is invalid because the child is not party to the contract and couldn't consent to it anyways. The childs welfare was not part of my argument. My argument is on the issue of responsibility. Contract or not, the man is responsible for the child being created. He wasn't deceived, it wasn't even accidental. The specific desired result of his actions was the creation of a child, in what world could you possibly claim that he isn't responsible for it? Now, whether or not he should be "held responsible" is something debateable.

 

[mad cow]

should a woman that puts their child up for adoption be hit with child support if the adoptive parents ever go on welfare?

That's one hell of a good argument for getting an abortion!






should we kill the adoption business?






-t

This.

Suppose a married man and woman adopted a baby and got divorced 4 years later.
Should government go after the birth mother for child support or the ex-husband?
What if the husband simply dies.May the adopting mother then go after the birth mother for child support?

 

[KingNothing]

It isn't stupid. He took part in an activity in which the intended outcome was to create a new life, contract or not: he is responsible for the child. The reason that a child can not consent or sign a contract is the very same reason why he should be accountable.

So, what would have happened if he demanded custody of the child?

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

So, what would have happened if he demanded custody of the child?

Shit out of luck.

 

[acptulsa]

So, what would have happened if he demanded custody of the child?

I would have marveled that he finally grew a brain--and a pair.

Shit out of luck.

Up against a lesbian in Kansas? Don't be too sure.

 

[Nirvikalpa]

Contracts are not the answer to everything. Children aren't merchandise.

This and this exactly.

 

[jtstellar]

i hope you guys claiming he is responsible for life by donating sperms aren't at the same time abortion supporters.. that would be a hilarious irony, kind of like the time a woman on this board said fertilized eggs don't have rights then turned around and said animals should have rights. world is full of idiots, some represented even here.

 

[klamath]

i hope you guys claiming he is responsible for life by donating sperms aren't at the same time abortion supporters.. that would be a hilarious irony, kind of like the time a woman on this board said fertilized eggs don't have rights then turned around and said animals should have rights. world is full of idiots, some represented even here.

Not me.