PDA

View Full Version : Kansas wants sperm donor to pay child support - WTF???




tangent4ronpaul
01-02-2013, 08:06 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/02/sperm-donor-child-support/1803725/

A U.S. man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple after answering an online ad is fighting efforts by Kansas state authorities to suddenly force him to pay child support for the now 3-year-old girl, arguing that he and the women signed an agreement waiving all of his parental rights.

The case hinges on the fact that no doctors were used for the artificial insemination. The state argues that because William Marotta didn't work through a clinic or doctor, as required by state law, he can be held responsible for about $6,000 that the child's biological mother received through public assistance — as well as future child support.

...

Court records show that Marotta, Schreiner and Bauer signed an agreement in March 2009, with the women agreeing to "hold him harmless" financially. The agreement also said the child's birth certificate would not list a father.

...

-t

Kotin
01-02-2013, 08:08 PM
government interfering with private contracts?? cannot say I am surprised?? isn't that one of their main functions?

torchbearer
01-02-2013, 08:09 PM
um, why are people getting pregnant if they can't afford the child?
$6000 was stolen from the neighbors to give the to the lesbian couple.
the state is going after the sperm donor instead of them. that is fucked up.

klamath
01-02-2013, 08:10 PM
It is his kid. If he didn't want it to happen don't donate to a infertle relationship. Can't feel sorry for him.

dannno
01-02-2013, 08:19 PM
It is his kid. If he didn't want it to happen don't donate to a infertle relationship. Can't feel sorry for him.


No, if he didn't want it to happen he should have made an agreement and signed a contract with the couple..

OH wait..

klamath
01-02-2013, 08:26 PM
No, if he didn't want it to happen he should have made an agreement and signed a contract with the couple..

OH wait..
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.

Anti Federalist
01-02-2013, 08:29 PM
http://static2.fjcdn.com/comments/My+mind+is+full+of+fuck+_6878ab4864ce16c4a7bbb3695 79e1655.jpg

tangent4ronpaul
01-02-2013, 08:41 PM
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.

Well that would put every sperm bank in the country out of business instantly.

So how much should a infertile couple or a couple where there are known genetic diseases they don't want to pass to the offspring pay a sperm donor, knowing that the sperm donor will have to support the kid if they ever break up? Should there be insurance like that?

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

Pisces
01-02-2013, 08:46 PM
Contracts are not the answer to everything. Children aren't merchandise.

Anti Federalist
01-02-2013, 08:56 PM
Contracts are not the answer to everything. Children aren't merchandise.

+Rep

klamath
01-02-2013, 08:57 PM
Contracts are not the answer to everything. Children aren't merchandise.
Right. Your contract to your child is a lot higher that a stupid piece of paper signed by the susposed "responsible" adults.

jkob
01-02-2013, 08:59 PM
You guys are ridiculous, the guy signed away his parental rights and is not responsible for this child, are people that put there children up for adoption still responsible for their children? Blame Kansas for being so backwards only allowing for one parent of the couple to be on the birth certificate.

madengr
01-02-2013, 09:01 PM
Wonder what would happen if the two woman were married, then got a divorce? Not that it's recognized in KS. Would both of the woman be liable for child support.

satchelmcqueen
01-02-2013, 09:36 PM
how can you say this? dont believe in contracts?
It is his kid. If he didn't want it to happen don't donate to a infertle relationship. Can't feel sorry for him.

JK/SEA
01-02-2013, 09:38 PM
this SHOULD kill the sperm donor industry. Emphasis on SHOULD.

dillo
01-02-2013, 09:39 PM
Contracts are not the answer to everything. Children aren't merchandise.

They are in the case of couples that cant conventionally conceive them

jmdrake
01-02-2013, 09:39 PM
um, why are people getting pregnant if they can't afford the child?
$6000 was stolen from the neighbors to give the to the lesbian couple.
the state is going after the sperm donor instead of them. that is fucked up.

And in this case it's not even "the condom broke".

jmdrake
01-02-2013, 09:44 PM
this SHOULD kill the sperm donor industry. Emphasis on SHOULD.

Would the problem have come up if they had gone to a sperm bank? Aren't those records kept anonymous?

tangent4ronpaul
01-02-2013, 09:47 PM
this SHOULD kill the sperm donor industry. Emphasis on SHOULD.

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

torchbearer
01-02-2013, 09:49 PM
And in this case it's not even "the condom broke".

right, the pregnancy was intentional by design.
they brought a kid into this world intentionally without the funds to care for the child themselves. so they have burdened their neighbors with the extra cost of their decision. on top of that, the government is going after the guy who responded to an ad that requested sperm. sounded like a trade agreement was made. what the women did with his sperm after that point is not his liability.

tangent4ronpaul
01-02-2013, 09:53 PM
right, the pregnancy was intentional by design.
they brought a kid into this world intentionally without the funds to care for the child themselves. so they have burdened their neighbors with the extra cost of their decision. on top of that, the government is going after the guy who responded to an ad that requested sperm. sounded like a trade agreement was made. what the women did with his sperm after that point is not his liability.

They were supporting the child till the dead-beat bulldyke bailed and mom was left with a 3yo and no way to support it other than state aid.

-t

torchbearer
01-02-2013, 09:55 PM
They were supporting the child till the dead-beat bulldyke bailed and mom was left with a 3yo and no way to support it other than state aid.

-t then the case is clear, dead-beat bulldyke owes the bill. seems clear.

Danke
01-02-2013, 09:57 PM
My New Years Resolution is to stop sperm donations.

puppetmaster
01-02-2013, 10:16 PM
um, why are people getting pregnant if they can't afford the child?
$6000 was stolen from the neighbors to give the to the lesbian couple.
the state is going after the sperm donor instead of them. that is fucked up.

Fucking leaches. They are the problem

angelatc
01-02-2013, 10:22 PM
The only likeable person in this story is the kid.

Pauls' Revere
01-02-2013, 11:21 PM
Great, were going to outsource our sperm industry as well.

jkob
01-03-2013, 01:40 AM
then the case is clear, dead-beat bulldyke owes the bill. seems clear.

But Kansas is backwards and does not recognize same sex couples so Ms. Bauer has no legal obligation to provide for the child. Only Ms. Schreiner's name is on the birth certificate.

Kregisen
01-03-2013, 01:51 AM
Pretty ridiculous story....hoping their contract holds up. He is not responsible for the kid according to the contract.

John F Kennedy III
01-03-2013, 02:01 AM
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.

WHAT THE FUCK?

idiom
01-03-2013, 02:39 AM
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.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

"Let the heathen spill theirs on the dusty ground. God shall make them pay for each sperm that can't be found."

"Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care."

klamath
01-03-2013, 07:18 AM
how can you say this? dont believe in contracts?
Did he sign a contract with his child?

klamath
01-03-2013, 07:22 AM
WHAT THE FUCK?
WTF!

KingNothing
01-03-2013, 07:24 AM
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.

Seriously? He probably thought he was doing a wonderful and kind thing! Seems awful to criticize him for what he did.

specsaregood
01-03-2013, 07:28 AM
Did he sign a contract with his child?

That is one helluva good point.

juleswin
01-03-2013, 07:38 AM
Seriously? He probably thought he was doing a wonderful and kind thing! Seems awful to criticize him for what he did.

Exactly as the saying goes "no good deed goes unpunished". I understand the natural instinct in all of us to protect the women(in the case the lesbian provider) and children from harm but sorry guys a contract is a contract. He signed away parental rights to these people, he has no obligation to take care of this child

klamath
01-03-2013, 08:19 AM
Seriously? He probably thought he was doing a wonderful and kind thing! Seems awful to criticize him for what he did. Or he thought he would do the enlighened thing and go against millions of years established biology- two females don't make a child.
If he wants to sign a legal paper to protect him from having to take responsiblilty maybe he should have gone through established legal channels.

jmdrake
01-03-2013, 08:21 AM
//

Feelgood
01-03-2013, 08:36 AM
Did he sign a contract with his child?

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.

specsaregood
01-03-2013, 08:49 AM
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.

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 one might argue that he be held accountable.

juleswin
01-03-2013, 09:03 AM
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.

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. No kid wants to be born in an impoverished or war torn country but they are routinely born in those places every year and most of them will die as a result of it. The sad thing is that there is nothing anyone can do about it.

This unfortunate kid might be the example people need to see to avoid situations such as this in the future. Life is indeed cruel.

klamath
01-03-2013, 09:04 AM
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
01-03-2013, 09:05 AM
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
01-03-2013, 09:11 AM
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
01-03-2013, 09:14 AM
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
01-03-2013, 09:17 AM
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
01-03-2013, 09:20 AM
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
01-03-2013, 09:24 AM
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........ :rolleyes:

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
01-03-2013, 09:26 AM
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
01-03-2013, 09:26 AM
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
01-03-2013, 09:37 AM
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
01-03-2013, 09:40 AM
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
01-03-2013, 09:44 AM
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
01-03-2013, 09:47 AM
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
01-03-2013, 10:14 AM
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
01-03-2013, 10:41 AM
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
01-03-2013, 10:47 AM
So, what would have happened if he demanded custody of the child?

Shit out of luck.

acptulsa
01-03-2013, 10:48 AM
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
01-03-2013, 10:50 AM
Contracts are not the answer to everything. Children aren't merchandise.

This and this exactly.

jtstellar
01-03-2013, 11:23 AM
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
01-03-2013, 11:26 AM
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.

dannno
01-03-2013, 11:33 AM
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
01-03-2013, 11:37 AM
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
01-03-2013, 11:42 AM
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
01-03-2013, 11:45 AM
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
01-03-2013, 12:11 PM
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
01-03-2013, 01:14 PM
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
01-03-2013, 01:19 PM
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
01-03-2013, 02:04 PM
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
01-03-2013, 02:37 PM
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
01-03-2013, 02:55 PM
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
01-03-2013, 04:15 PM
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
01-03-2013, 04:19 PM
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
01-03-2013, 04:26 PM
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7ijw7GDXR1r0p4hfo1_400.jpg

tangent4ronpaul
01-03-2013, 04:38 PM
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! :rolleyes:

(reason 287,461 to homeschool)

-t

tangent4ronpaul
01-03-2013, 04:57 PM
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
01-03-2013, 05:05 PM
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
01-03-2013, 05:21 PM
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
01-03-2013, 05:27 PM
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
01-03-2013, 05:32 PM
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
01-03-2013, 05:39 PM
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?

tttppp
01-03-2013, 05:45 PM
government interfering with private contracts?? cannot say I am surprised?? isn't that one of their main functions?

This is basic contract law. The government is suppose to enforce contracts, not break them and create their own.

klamath
01-03-2013, 06:06 PM
The guy tried to mess around with an already tricky legal area and he got burned. Why the F**K would he answer some stupid ad to create a child for an unknown couple. Just maybe the idiot should have spent a little time researching the laws of the state of KS on what the hell the requirements were for absolving yourself of legal responsibity for the child he was voluntarily conceiving.
Oh, wow I signed a contract relieving myself of legal responsiblity when I gave my little girl to a child rapist......But, but, but he said he wouldn't hold me responsible...:rolleyes:

devil21
01-03-2013, 06:18 PM
The guy tried to mess around with an already tricky legal area and he got burned. Why the F**K would he answer some stupid ad to create a child for an unknown couple. Just maybe the idiot should have spent a little time researching the laws of the state of KS on what the hell the requirements were for absolving yourself of legal responsibity for the child he was voluntarily conceiving.
Oh, wow I signed a contract relieving myself of legal responsiblity when I gave my little girl to a child rapist......But, but, but he said he wouldn't hold me responsible...:rolleyes:

Are you comparing sperm donations to felony criminal conduct?

acptulsa
01-03-2013, 06:22 PM
Are you comparing sperm donations to felony criminal conduct?

Shall we add up the monetary cost in this instance? The state of Kansas seems to be.

klamath
01-03-2013, 06:24 PM
Are you comparing sperm donations to felony criminal conduct?
I am talking about knowingly donating sperm for the know purpose of creating your child to an unknown couple of unknown moral charactor.

klamath
01-03-2013, 06:32 PM
The government enforces contracts signed by individuals and adjudicates in government courts any disagreements between the parties. The state of Kansas determines what the legal frame work those contracts are in. Because two parties sign a contract between themselves giving up the rights of a noninvolved third party it is not a legal binding contract on that third party.

presence
01-03-2013, 06:34 PM
Ok... I'm still on that subject of "do you folks not believe in adoption?"

klamath
01-03-2013, 06:40 PM
Ok... I'm still on that subject of "do you folks not believe in adoption?" I believe in adoption when set rules for adoption are followed. I don't believe somebody has the right to walk up to a stranger on the street and sign a contract to give their child away to the said stranger.

idiom
01-03-2013, 06:42 PM
Ok... I'm still on that subject of "do you folks not believe in adoption?"

You can't adopt sperm. Don't be ridiculous. Imagine how many forms you would have to sign for a few millilitres...

mad cow
01-03-2013, 07:03 PM
There are laws in some States(safe haven laws)where a Mother can leave her baby at a hospital or fire station rather than in a dumpster without identifying herself and certainly without a contract or following any rules for adoption.

I assume,but don't know,that she would not be liable for child support if she was identified as the mother through fingerprints,DNA,camera or such.
I also assume and hope that she would have no claim against the adoptive parents if she changed her mind years later and wanted the child back.

dannno
01-03-2013, 07:06 PM
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.

But think about it, if a husband and wife are having trouble conceiving, the dude is probably getting it a lot. If he elects to IVF and wants to support the child then he's certainly morally responsible. I just think it is BS that the state is MAKING this guy responsible when he was just being nice and making a donation to the couple (even if he received some $$) and so it's not like a deadbeat dad who went out and had unprotected sex.




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.

No such thing. Plenty of guys not getting nearly enough, though.

torchbearer
01-03-2013, 07:57 PM
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. yes, i know. being sarcastic.
some people debating the opposite point have mod powers they will use in disagreements.
i was looking out for the posters account.

torchbearer
01-03-2013, 07:59 PM
There are laws in some States(safe haven laws)where a Mother can leave her baby at a hospital or fire station rather in a dumpster without identifying herself and certainly without a contract or following any rules for adoption.

I assume,but don't know,that she would not be liable for child support if she was identified as the mother through fingerprints,DNA,camera or such.
I also assume and hope that she would have no claim against the adoptive parents if she changed her mind years later and wanted the child back.

we aren't talking about protecting women, we are talking about punishing men, especially if they go out of their way to help a couple have a baby they want.

presence
01-03-2013, 08:33 PM
Did this guy actually syringe the mom or did she do it to herself in private?

tangent4ronpaul
01-03-2013, 10:17 PM
http://global3.memecdn.com/Its-A-Fap_c_138811.jpg
http://global3.memecdn.com/its-a-trap_c_384515.jpg

-t

fr33
01-03-2013, 11:11 PM
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.The only difference between this case and a regular adoption is the sanction the state puts on a regular adoption. It's in everyone's best interest that the child grow up in a happy home so of course the adoption agency should take that into account. I have NO faith that the state takes that into account.


You can't legally abandon your child just because you made a contract with somebody.You can legally abandon them at the fire station door. No contract required.


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.And those are arbitrary laws set by a violent gang, known as the state, who have a monopoly over the business of licensing. I don't attribute any value to their license other than the value I am violently forced to recognize.

Pisces
01-04-2013, 12:23 AM
The only difference between this case and a regular adoption is the sanction the state puts on a regular adoption. It's in everyone's best interest that the child grow up in a happy home so of course the adoption agency should take that into account. I have NO faith that the state takes that into account.

You can't assume that all parties will always want what is best for the child. The state does not have a monopoly on evil.



You can legally abandon them at the fire station door. No contract required.

Only if your state has a "safe haven" law. (Not all states have these laws.) Even then, the fire station door has to be designated as a safe haven by the state and the child must be under a certain age. It's not at all a blanket right to abandon your child. These laws only apply to narrow circumstances because they are meant to give unstable mothers an alternative to infanticide.


And those are arbitrary laws set by a violent gang, known as the state, who have a monopoly over the business of licensing. I don't attribute any value to their license other than the value I am violently forced to recognize.

The principle that parents are responsible for the children they bring into the world probably pre-dates the state and is not really arbitrary. The laws that are passed to ensure that parents support their children aren't really arbitrary either since they have a purpose that most would agree with. I'm not really talking here about licensing of sperm banks. The law that I'm referring to is the one that requires a sperm donor to have documentation from a doctor or sperm bank to show that they are truly a sperm donor.

otherone
01-04-2013, 06:26 AM
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.

Of course they can! Apparently (pun intended), you enter a paperless contract whenever you get laid!

Barrex
01-04-2013, 08:37 AM
WHAT THE FUCK?


WTF!
Lesbians apparently....

LOL at state that gives "child subsidies";
LOL at lesbians that "made" a child that they can not support;
LOL donor for getting lucky with 2 lesbians and then getting caught;
LOL at taxpayers that have pay for this kind of stupidity;
LOL at this thread...

Signature: Kinky stone age conservative christian, doesnt endorse same sex marriages, against abortions, not childs fault.



P.s.

I am sorry but I have to add this: This thread reminded me of "2 hookers braveheart" scene (FREEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOMMM)

devil21
01-04-2013, 04:15 PM
He didn't even accept the $50 they offered.

Warrior_of_Freedom
01-04-2013, 04:56 PM
Sure I'd pay, and take the kid too! I'd see the mother declining that money, FAST.

juleswin
01-04-2013, 05:00 PM
Of course they can! Apparently (pun intended), you enter a paperless contract whenever you get laid!

Exactly, who needs written contracts anymore. My contract with my landlord, credit card company, phone company and girls I have sex with ALL paperless. Yup, its just like the social contracts all you noobs deny every signing.

presence
01-04-2013, 05:03 PM
Still no word on whether he was actually there for the syringe implantation? That colors the whole thing for me. If he wasn't there he gave them sperm so the "could" artificially inseminate. If he was not in possession of his seed at insemination how could he be responsible for the conception?

Conversely, I see some legalism fail on his behalf by not taking any money in exchange; I believe there is some lawful magic to "in consideration of" making for a more enforceable contract.

juleswin
01-04-2013, 05:04 PM
LOL donor for getting lucky with 2 lesbians and then getting caught;



How do you know those lesbians are not complete hogs and he actually naturally inseminated the pregnant lesbian? Also what do you mean by "getting caught"? I dont think he was hiding from anyone.

acptulsa
01-04-2013, 05:06 PM
How do you know those lesbians are not complete hogs and he actually naturally inseminated the pregnant lesbian? Also what do you mean by "getting caught"? I dont think he was hiding from anyone.

You've heard of 'poetic license'? He was attempting to exercise some humorous license. Give him a break.

specsaregood
01-04-2013, 05:17 PM
If he was not in possession of his seed at insemination how could he be responsible for the conception?
Was it entirely under his control whether or not this child was conceived? Yes, it was. If he had not given them the sperm, then it wouldnt have happened. Thus he is responsible.



Conversely, I see some legalism fail on his behalf by not taking any money in exchange; I believe there is some lawful magic to "in consideration of" making for a more enforceable contract.
I agree, if he had taken the money I would think that would weigh in his favor. Since he didn't take the money, then what was his "payment"? Perhaps the knowledge that his dna would be passed on to another generation; which would further point to his responsiblity.

presence
01-04-2013, 05:27 PM
Was it entirely under his control whether or not this child was conceived? Yes, it was. If he had not given them the sperm, then it wouldnt have happened. Thus he is responsible.

If he was in the room when the syringe was squeezed or actually participated in the artificial insemination I could agree. After that sperm left his possession (if it indeed did) he had no control over whether or not the woman chose to make actual use of it away from his presence.

specsaregood
01-04-2013, 05:30 PM
If he was in the room when the syringe was squeezed or actually participated in the artificial insemination I could agree. After that sperm left his possession (if it indeed did) he had no control over whether or not the woman chose to make actual use of it away from his presence.

But, he had ultimate control over whether or not they had access to it. His actions were necessary for insemination to take place, there is no way of claiming that he had no responsiblity for the effects.

Danke
01-04-2013, 05:35 PM
Still no word on whether he was actually there for the syringe implantation? That colors the whole thing for me. If he wasn't there he gave them sperm so the "could" artificially inseminate. If he was not in possession of his seed at insemination how could he be responsible for the conception?

Conversely, I see some legalism fail on his behalf by not taking any money in exchange; I believe there is some lawful magic to "in consideration of" making for a more enforceable contract.

Wasn't the "consideration" being able to screw a lesbo and telling his friends about it?

presence
01-04-2013, 05:55 PM
But, he had ultimate control over whether or not they had access to it. His actions were necessary for insemination to take place, there is no way of claiming that he had no responsiblity for the effects.


His actions may have been necessary for insemination to take place but he had no "personal responsibility"; no possession claim or ownership claim (the enforcability of the contract is of course in question; as we don't have it before us) at conception. Take for example.. had the lesbians moved to another country and kept his boys on ice for a decade before implanting. Could it be said he still had possession, ownership, or personal responsibility for his sperm?


In order for a purchase to be "bona fide" there must be 1) consideration 2) notice 3) good faith.

I'm seeing notice. I'm seeing good faith. I'm having trouble with consideration.


There is some info here on the subject:

http://www.theafa.org/article/using-a-known-sperm-donor-understanding-the-legal-risks-and-challenges/


Agreements Are Important But Not Necessarily Dispositive


Even if the parties use a physician, some states expressly allow the parties to change the status of a sperm provider from donor to father, based on a contract. However, again, parties need to pay careful attention to the statutory requirements if they wish to exercise this option, as a sperm provider discovered the hard way in a Kansas case. In In the Interest of K.M.H. (KS 2007), the mother did involve a physician in the insemination, triggering application of the statute, which denied the donor parental rights. However, the donor claimed that he and the mother had an oral agreement that he would act as father to any resulting child. The Kansas AI statute allowed the parties to avoid the statutory bar on parental rights for donors, but only if they agreed in writing. Hence, the court rejected the sperm provider’s claim because it was based on an oral agreement. Obviously in a state with this kind of statute, parties wishing the sperm provider to assume parental rights and responsibilities should sign a written agreement.

A similar result occurred in a Texas case. In In the Interest of H.C.S. (2006)), a Texas appellate court ruled that a man who provided semen to inseminate his sister’s partner did not have standing under the Texas insemination statute to maintain an action to establish paternity, despite his claim of an oral agreement that he would be involved in the child’s life. In order to be considered a legal father, a male donor and the mother would have had to sign and file an acknowledgment of paternity, which was not done. However, another Texas court, in In re Sharon Elizabeth Sullivan (2005), had ruled a year earlier that a sperm provider did have standing to try to establish paternity, without reaching the merits of whether he would be considered a donor or a father, given the existence of a written “co-parenting” agreement.

In many states, there is no statutory guidance about the impact of contracts on the parental status of known sperm providers, and the cases have differed in their treatment of these contracts. In several instances, courts have relied on contracts between the parties to resolve the donor’s parental status. A Florida court looked to a written agreement to determine that the sperm provider was a donor in Lamaritata v. Lucas (2002). A Florida statute declared that sperm donors had no parental rights. Although the statute did not define “sperm donor,” the sperm provider and the recipient had entered into a written agreement that identified him as a sperm “donor.” That designation was sufficient to conclude that the statute applied.

In two other cases, courts have found that the existence of a contract between the sperm provider and recipient transformed the provider from donor to father. In In the Interest of R.C. (1989), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the Colorado artificial insemination statute would not apply if the donor proved, as he alleged, that he and the mother had an agreement that he would act as parent and that their conduct was consistent with that assertion. In that case, the sperm provider could claim paternity. An Oregon case that same year, McIntyre v. Crouch (1989), held that the sperm provider was a donor under Oregon’s AI statute (despite not using a physician). However, the court also found that if he could prove an agreement to act as a father, he would be able to claim paternity. To apply the donor statute in that situation would violate his constitutional right to due process.

In a Pennsylvania case, the existence of a contract protected the donor from a claim for child support. In Ferguson v. McKiernan (2007), a friend who had previously been romantically involved with the mother provided semen to a clinic for her insemination. The donor and mother entered into a contract relieving him of any parental rights or responsibilities. Five years after the child’s birth, the mother sought child support. The lower court initially found in her favor, relying on the fairly universal rule that a contract to waive child support where the child is conceived through intercourse is not enforceable. However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed and ruled that the contract was enforceable. Although Pennsylvania does not have an AI statute clarifying the rights of donors and recipients, the court found no meaningful distinction between the circumstances of this insemination (using a physician, with a contract) and anonymous donation, where the donor would be protected from claims for support.

In the most recent case to consider this issue, the existence and terms of the contract between the recipient mother and sperm donor proved critical and led to a rather startling result. In Paternity of M.F. and C.F. (Indiana 2010), a man agreed to provide semen to a friend and her life partner for the friend to conceive a child. The parties signed a contract relieving the donor of all parental rights and responsibilities. The insemination was successful, resulting in the birth of M.F. Seven years later, mother had a second child, C.F., who was also the biological child of the donor. The mother’s relationship with her partner subsequently ended, and she sought public assistance. The County then filed an action of her behalf against the sperm provider to establish paternity and support. Although Indiana does not have an AI statute, the court looked to the UPA for guidance and held that the contract relieving the donor of parental rights and responsibilities was valid if the semen had been provided to physician and if the parties had executed a sufficiently thorough and formalized written contract. In this case, the lengthy and sophisticated contract, which had been drafted by an attorney, was sufficient to be enforceable. The parties disputed the manner of insemination, but the court placed the burden on the party seeking to avoid contract—the mother. She failed to prove that the insemination occurred by intercourse and without a physician, so the court found the contract was enforceable. However, the contract was entered into shortly before the birth of the first child and only referenced that child. The parties did not execute another agreement before the birth of the second child. In the absence of a contract governing the second child, the sperm provider would be considered a father and liable for child support. Hence he was a donor to one child and a father to the other!

specsaregood
01-04-2013, 06:00 PM
His actions may have been necessary for insemination to take place but he had no "personal responsibility"; no possession claim or ownership claim (the enforcability of the contract is of course in question) at conception. Take for example.. had the lesbians moved to another country and kept his boys on ice for a decade before implanting. Could it be said he still had possession, ownership, or personal responsibility for his sperm?

Yes, when the insemination took place is irrelevant. He had ultimate control and is responsible for the consequences.

Ranger29860
01-04-2013, 06:15 PM
Yes, when the insemination took place is irrelevant. He had ultimate control and is responsible for the consequences.

So a gun salesmen is responsible for what a customer does?

presence
01-04-2013, 06:23 PM
Yes, when the insemination took place is irrelevant. He had ultimate control and is responsible for the consequences.

I took a plus rep for that last post which noted...


or god forbid, she shares the sperm with 1000 other ladies

Would he be responsible for all of them?

specsaregood
01-04-2013, 06:24 PM
So a gun salesmen is responsible for what a customer does?

Good question. how about this: could what is done ONLY be done due to actions by that gun salesman?

juleswin
01-04-2013, 06:24 PM
So a gun salesmen is responsible for what a customer does?

"To infinity and beyond" The best way to solve all this is for women to make sure anyone having sex with them sign a contract that ensures that if a baby results from the sex, the man will take care of the child. If this happens, you will see a drastic change in behavior. For one NBA groupies would get paid up front instead of trying to entrap a superstar and have him pay for her upkeep for the next 18yrs.

presence
01-04-2013, 06:25 PM
So a gun salesmen is responsible for what a customer does?

That is specifically covered by 15 USC Chapter 105 - PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS


But you do bring some interesting terminology into the discussion by alluding to it. Specifically:


][/I]18 U.S.C., section 924(h), provides: whoever knowingly transfers a firearm knowing that such firearm will be used to commit a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title.

Did the sperm donor knowingly transfer the sperm knowing the couple would seek state support?

NO



Subsection (5), the definition, then excludes five categories of lawsuits from coverage under S. 1805:



(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted.
In other words, we don't exempt that. We exclude these categories from that definition so you can still go to court, you can still gain redress from that.
The second one is:
(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se.
Negligent entrustment is defined:
. . . the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or should know, the person to whom the product supplied is likely to, or does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.
In other words, if the seller knows that this is going to be used for criminal intent or for misuse, then of course that provision is exempt from the protection under 1806.

Third:
(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product [knowingly and willfully] violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which the relief is sought. . . .
Again, the courthouse door is open to that.
(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product.
That is available.
(v) an action for physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable.



Those are really the key points here that we do not in any way exempt. What we are doing in S. 1805 is very simple. We are trying to reinforce centuries of legal precedent, based on individual responsibilities, not responsible for actions of third parties. In other words, once again the trial bar is trying to suggest that a criminal act is the responsibility of the person who manufactured the product that the criminal may use in that act.

We have never allowed that to stand in our courts, and now we are trying to assure that a very small industry in this country can be protected from the kinds of frivolous lawsuits filed that are draining them of their very livelihood.




http://votesmart.org/public-statement/30483/protection-of-lawful-commerce-in-arms-act-motion-to-proceed-part-one#.UOdzoPkhh6h


So

1, did the man commit any felony in the transfer aside from the civil issue the state now has with him?

NO

2, did the man have any reason to believe the sperm would be used in a criminal manner (or a manner to extract state benefits)

NO

3, was there any state law forbidding the private sale of sperm?

NO

4, does the state have breach of contract claims against this guy?

NO

5, has anyone claimed the child was defective?

NO

specsaregood
01-04-2013, 06:25 PM
I took a plus rep for that last post which noted...
Would he be responsible for all of them?

In the technical sense, yes. Of course I noted earlier that fraud, deception or theft might negate responsibility. This was not the case, he intentionally gave the sperm in order to create the child. How could he not be responsible for its creation?

Anti Federalist
01-04-2013, 06:35 PM
How do you know those lesbians are not complete hogs and he actually naturally inseminated the pregnant lesbian? Also what do you mean by "getting caught"? I dont think he was hiding from anyone.

Lesbian porn lied to me, again.

http://i.imgur.com/P0kYh5V.jpg

Ranger29860
01-04-2013, 06:42 PM
Good question. how about this: could what is done ONLY be done due to actions by that gun salesman?

Might need you to reword this, having hard time figuruing out what you are saying.

But lets look at like a libertarian :). Your body is your property, you can do what you want with your property including selling it.


The man sells his property (sperm), it is no longer his property. The woman gets herself pregnant with her property (his sperm). Is that man liable for anything that happens with that property or results of how that property is used?

Now look at it like a gun salesman

The man sells his property (gun), it is no longer his property. The woman shoots and kills someone in cold blood with her property (his sold gun). Is that man liable for anything that happens with that property or results of how that property is used?

*edit*
I think this whole thing is a property rights issue. If he was the one to actually inseminate in a night of passion, then this would be a whole different issue but he SOLD his property (sperm is not a baby) .

dannno
01-04-2013, 06:44 PM
Yes, when the insemination took place is irrelevant. He had ultimate control and is responsible for the consequences.


So a gun salesmen is responsible for what a customer does?


Good question. how about this: could what is done ONLY be done due to actions by that gun salesman?

If I were him I would claim that I sold the women my sperm because it is highly nutritious and as lesbians they are missing out on important nutrients and that I had no idea they were going to use it for artificial insemination purposes.

Of course the contract he signed kinda doesn't match that story, it's a good one.

rp4prez
01-04-2013, 07:25 PM
Child Support is screwed up. It's extortion sponsored by the state. Look at Title IV D Federal Funding.

Child Support is there for the state. The state makes money off of it. So it's no surprise that they are going after this poor guy. He'll have to pay back child support as well to the tune of thousands of dollars.

It's debtors prison. Don't pay go to jail.

Got to love the state. He should fight for his life and tell everyone the story and get it out. It's a great opportunity to educate people about the horrible system.

torchbearer
01-04-2013, 07:27 PM
Child Support is screwed up. It's extortion sponsored by the state. Look at Title IV D Federal Funding.

Child Support is there for the state. The state makes money off of it. So it's no surprise that they are going after this poor guy. He'll have to pay back child support as well to the tune of thousands of dollars.

It's debtors prison. Don't pay go to jail.

Got to love the state. He should fight for his life and tell everyone the story and get it out. It's a great opportunity to educate people about the horrible system.

maybe you should reread this thread, some people here like the King as father.

idiom
01-04-2013, 07:28 PM
If I were him I would claim that I sold the women my sperm because it is highly nutritious and as lesbians they are missing out on important nutrients and that I had no idea they were going to use it for artificial insemination purposes.

Of course the contract he signed kinda doesn't match that story, it's a good one.

Sorta surprised Donnay hasn't made a thread about this:

http://static.lulu.com/browse/product_thumbnail.php?productId=20052760&resolution=320


Semen is not only nutritious, but it also has a wonderful texture and amazing cooking properties. Like fine wine and cheeses, the taste of semen is complex and dynamic. Semen is inexpensive to produce and is commonly available in many, if not most, homes and restaurants. Despite all of these positive qualities, semen remains neglected as a food.

This book hopes to change that.

Once you overcome any initial hesitation, you will be surprised to learn how wonderful semen is in the kitchen. Semen is an exciting ingredient that can give every dish you make an interesting twist. If you are a passionate cook and are not afraid to experiment with new ingredients - you will love this cook book!

dannno
01-04-2013, 07:33 PM
I would think the cooking properties of semen would be rather inconsistent.

presence
01-04-2013, 07:43 PM
drink more water

rp4prez
01-05-2013, 07:24 AM
maybe you should reread this thread, some people here like the King as father.

I couldn't stomach reading the entire thread. The first two pages made me want to vomit. People in this thread are speaking from ignorance. They certainly sound like they don't have a clue about the system, child support, the facts, or family law. AKA they are speaking out of their ass.

The system thrives upon parents conflict, which is NOT in the best interests of the child. The system thrives on destroying the family, which is NOT in the best interests of the child.

Hell I could go ON and ON and ON. All you really need to do is follow the money. It's all about the money. These women going after the sperm donar is all about the money. Child Support goes through the federal government and the federal reserve which distributes it back to the states which then distributes it back to the primary custodial parent plus some to help pay for the industry. It's a SCAM.

You people need to educate yourselves on this because you all sound like fools.

Go read Warren Farrell's book Father and Child Reunion (http://www.amazon.com/Father-Child-Reunion-Bring-Children/dp/B00006RGIG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357391794&sr=8-1&keywords=Father+and+Child+Reunion) and then read Carol Rhodes Friend of the court enemy of the family (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0966816102/ref=oh_details_o09_s00_i00) as she used to work for child support enforcement.

After you do this start looking at the statistics of how much the government spends on child support enforcement versus visitation enforcement. Then start asking yourself the questions of why this is. After you do this go read the Social Security Act of 1975. Then go read your state's Title IV D Federal Funding.

After you do all of this then maybe you can talk about all of this. Until then this thread is appalling as none of you really seems to understand or know what you are talking about.

tod evans
01-05-2013, 07:36 AM
VVVVVVVVVVVVVV Truth! VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV


I couldn't stomach reading the entire thread. The first two pages made me want to vomit. People in this thread are speaking from ignorance. They certainly sound like they don't have a clue about the system, child support, the facts, or family law. AKA they are speaking out of their ass.

The system thrives upon parents conflict, which is NOT in the best interests of the child. The system thrives on destroying the family, which is NOT in the best interests of the child.

Hell I could go ON and ON and ON. All you really need to do is follow the money. It's all about the money. These women going after the sperm donar is all about the money. Child Support goes through the federal government and the federal reserve which distributes it back to the states which then distributes it back to the primary custodial parent plus some to help pay for the industry. It's a SCAM.

You people need to educate yourselves on this because you all sound like fools.

Go read Warren Farrell's book Father and Child Reunion (http://www.amazon.com/Father-Child-Reunion-Bring-Children/dp/B00006RGIG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357391794&sr=8-1&keywords=Father+and+Child+Reunion) and then read Carol Rhodes Friend of the court enemy of the family (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0966816102/ref=oh_details_o09_s00_i00) as she used to work for child support enforcement.

After you do this start looking at the statistics of how much the government spends on child support enforcement versus visitation enforcement. Then start asking yourself the questions of why this is. After you do this go read the Social Security Act of 1975. Then go read your state's Title IV D Federal Funding.

After you do all of this then maybe you can talk about all of this. Until then this thread is appalling as none of you really seems to understand or know what you are talking about.

Constitutional Paulicy
01-05-2013, 07:49 AM
I can understand the desire for a lesbian encounter but not at those prices. :eek:

Anti Federalist
01-23-2014, 04:59 PM
LOL - Knew I saw this story before.

Philhelm
01-23-2014, 05:02 PM
Sorta surprised Donnay hasn't made a thread about this:

http://static.lulu.com/browse/product_thumbnail.php?productId=20052760&resolution=320

Where can I find this recipe book for my wife? I'm sick of coming home and not having a warm meal on the table.

Anti Federalist
01-23-2014, 05:06 PM
Lesbian porn lied to me, again.

http://i.imgur.com/P0kYh5V.jpg

...

Anti Federalist
01-23-2014, 05:08 PM
Sorta surprised Donnay hasn't made a thread about this:

http://static.lulu.com/browse/product_thumbnail.php?productId=20052760&resolution=320

How the fuck did I miss this post???

DamianTV
01-23-2014, 05:09 PM
Having a Penis is a Felony in the Land of the Free.

idiom
01-23-2014, 05:14 PM
Where can I find this recipe book for my wife? I'm sick of coming home and not having a warm meal on the table.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/fotie-photenhauer/natural-harvest-a-collection-of-semen-based-recipes/paperback/product-20052760.html

$25.

Philhelm
01-23-2014, 05:17 PM
http://www.lulu.com/shop/fotie-photenhauer/natural-harvest-a-collection-of-semen-based-recipes/paperback/product-20052760.html

$25.

Do you know if there is a creampie recipe?

LibForestPaul
01-23-2014, 06:23 PM
Great, were going to outsource our sperm industry as well.

One little,two little, three little china wongs, five little, six little, seven little china wongs.

libertyjam
01-24-2014, 02:37 PM
http://lifenews.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/secularprolife2.jpg

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/01/20/if-a-man-doesnt-want-to-be-a-father-hes-a-deadbeat-a-woman-is-just-pro-choice/

MRK
01-24-2014, 03:07 PM
Do you know if there is a creampie recipe?

Send me a copy and I'll let you know. I'll send you back whatever's left over from the bake sale.