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

[dannno]

Did the sperm donor have sex with the lesbian or just donate sperm to be injected manually?

If he didn't get any pussy out of it, then there is no way in hell this guy is responsible. If he wanted to get some action from a lesbian then I could see how he might have some moral obligation to the child, but either way I don't think it should be enforced by the state.

If he just donated his sperm, I suppose he has some obligation to make sure the sperm he gave away would be well taken care of but again, this isn't something that should be enforced by the state.

 

[acptulsa]

Did the sperm donor have sex with the lesbian or just donate sperm to be injected manually?

If he didn't get any pussy out of it, then there is no way in hell this guy is responsible. If he wanted to get some action from a lesbian then I could see how he might have some moral obligation to the child...

So, it isn't about the child at all, it's about ensuring that the mother can be classified as a whore? Or am I missing something here?

 

[thoughtomator]

They all deserve to be punished for intentionally planning to bring a child in this world and deliberately depriving that child of a father.

 

[dannno]

They all deserve to be punished for intentionally planning to bring a child in this world and deliberately depriving that child of a father.

So people who don't think like you should be punished?

I agree, everything else being equal, having a father is better.. but I don't like the idea of playing ultimate ruler over everybody's life decisions.

 

[fr33]

i hope you guys claiming he is responsible for life by donating sperms aren't at the same time abortion supporters..

I think you meant adoption supporters. The people here saying the contract has no weight are saying the same thing for the adoption industry whether they know it or not.

 

[devil21]

Shit out of luck.

Maybe not, but be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

You think the state is being hard on him now? Just wait until he's the custodial parent. They'll have him wrapped up in so much bullshit that he'll be sitting in a courtroom every 3 months justifying his parental choices to some appointed "guardian ad litem" (who will most certainly be a liberal female and is paid some absurd "hourly court rate") and a female judge (also a liberal female), neither of which will approve of any parental decisions he makes, and then will charge HIM for the court time and lawyer fees. Ask me how I know.

 

[acptulsa]

Maybe not, but be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

You think the state is being hard on him now? Just wait until he's the custodial parent. They'll have him wrapped up in so much bullshit that he'll be sitting in a courtroom every 3 months justifying his parental choices to some appointed "guardian ad litem" (who will most certainly be a liberal female and is paid some absurd "hourly court rate") and a female judge (also a liberal female), neither of which will approve of any parental decisions he makes, and then will charge HIM for the court time and lawyer fees. Ask me how I know.

And all the while he'll be praising God he's not in California where a stepfather has more rights than a natural father does.

 

[Tod]

The simple solution to this is for the gay couple to reimburse the man for the child support. They are obligated (or should feel that they are) to cover his expenses. That might mean that the couple get back together to save expenses, work an extra job or two to earn the money, etc.


However, I would be more than a little surprised if they lifted a finger to help him with the predicament they placed him in by informing anyone of his identity.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Well that would put every sperm bank in the country out of business instantly.
...
How about a blood donor? If someone donates a pint and later the recipient lands in the hospital, should the donor be liable for their medical bills because the recipient is partially made of of their biological matter?

-t

The people here saying the contract has no weight are saying the same thing for the adoption industry whether they know it or not.

Don't be foolish. Contracts are only valid if they originate with official government entities or their duly recognized, certified and endorsed surrogates. Mundanes can't create contracts on their own! Remember, corporations are not people, except when it helps to be people. Otherwise corporations are agents of the State.

 

[Pisces]

I think you meant adoption supporters. The people here saying the contract has no weight are saying the same thing for the adoption industry whether they know it or not.

Adoption involves a lot more than just individuals signing a contract. The adoption process is designed to take into account the best interests of the child and not just the desires of the adults involved. You can't legally abandon your child just because you made a contract with somebody.

The law does treat sperm donors differently. The State of Kansas doesn't want let this guy off the hook without any documentation from a doctor or sperm bank that he truly is just a sperm donor. I think they're afraid this will set a precedent and biological fathers that have been identified using DNA will claim they were sperm donors to get out of paying child support.

 

[klamath]

Adoption involves a lot more than just individuals signing a contract. The adoption process is designed to take into account the best interests of the child and not just the desires of the adults involved. You can't legally abandon your child just because you made a contract with somebody.

The law does treat sperm donors differently. The State of Kansas doesn't want let this guy off the hook without any documentation from a doctor or sperm bank that he truly is just a sperm donor. I think they're afraid this will set a precedent and biological fathers that have been identified using DNA will claim they were sperm donors to get out of paying child support.

You hit the nail on the head.

 

[acptulsa]

Adoption involves a lot more than just individuals signing a contract. The adoption process is designed to take into account the best interests of the child and not just the desires of the adults involved. You can't legally abandon your child just because you made a contract with somebody.

The law does treat sperm donors differently. The State of Kansas doesn't want let this guy off the hook without any documentation from a doctor or sperm bank that he truly is just a sperm donor. I think they're afraid this will set a precedent and biological fathers that have been identified using DNA will claim they were sperm donors to get out of paying child support.

Sort of. The guy has a contract, and it's presumably dated. So, there's more to it than that. Specifically, whomever assumed the responsibility in the beginning, the taxpayers of Kansas wound up with the bill in the end. And since there's no law in Kansas to deal with deadbeat dikes, the state of Kansas looked at the laws it did have and nailed to the wall the person who they could nail to the wall.

 

[Matt Collins]

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

They all deserve to be punished for intentionally planning to bring a child in this world and deliberately depriving that child of a father.

I guess you haven't been around too many bull dykes.

Wasn't "Why Tommy has Two Mommies" required reading in your middle school? Get with the program guy!

(reason 287,461 to homeschool)

-t

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

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.

There was a study in Seattle WA, IIRC, some years ago were they tested the DNA of the child and the male named on the birth certificate at the time of birth. in 2/3rds of the cases, he wasn't.

This came as a major surprise to many "fathers".

-t

 

[Nirvikalpa]

Did the sperm donor have sex with the lesbian or just donate sperm to be injected manually?

If he didn't get any pussy out of it, then there is no way in hell this guy is responsible. If he wanted to get some action from a lesbian then I could see how he might have some moral obligation to the child, but either way I don't think it should be enforced by the state.

If he just donated his sperm, I suppose he has some obligation to make sure the sperm he gave away would be well taken care of but again, this isn't something that should be enforced by the state.

So, for a husband and wife who have trouble conceiving and elect to IVF, you're saying since the child isn't conceived naturally, he bears no responsibility for the child she bears?

There are married couples in which the husband "doesn't get any pussy out of" conceiving a child.

And then there are men who get way too much of it, and makes me really question and look down upon my sex... and facepalm.

 

[idiom]

So, for a husband and wife who have trouble conceiving and elect to IVF, you're saying since the child isn't conceived naturally, he bears no responsibility for the child she bears?

If a straight couple receive donor sperm then the husband who is not the biological father has no rights or responsibilities since they can never be separated from the biological father?

To be clear, everyone siding with the Kansas court is arguing that a sperm donor with no contact with a child is more of a father than a man who raises the child daily for twenty years?

Being a dad has absolutely zero do do with where the sperm came from. I cannot begin to fathom opinions that are contrary.

 

[torchbearer]

If a straight couple receive donor sperm then the husband who is not the biological father has no rights or responsibilities since they can never be separated from the biological father?

To be clear, everyone siding with the Kansas court is arguing that a sperm donor with no contact with a child is more of a father than a man who raises the child daily for twenty years?

Being a dad has absolutely zero do do with where the sperm came from. I cannot begin to fathom opinions that are contrary.

hush.

 

[acptulsa]

hush.

He has a point. But that doesn't mean it's universal.

A man has some sperm stolen by a speed freak who runs off with an abuser. He finds out and goes for custody of his child, to get that child out of the abusive situation. Is he more of a father, despite the fact that he hasn't had a chance to be a father at all?

That's the joy of laws. They're all 'one size fits all', and they don't. Which is why some of us are here arguing that the less government does, the better society can deal with individual situations.

 

[presence]

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.

I am just not following you... Do you not believe in adoption?