Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Archie Moses, Jan 4, 2013.
When I lived in the Mid-West I met plenty of people from Kansas and they always were the nicest people you'd ever want to meet. But collectively speaking some really, really strange **** comes out of that state.
To me this is insane. This man is not the father. The other half of that lesbian couple should be paying the child support. not this man.
This is not the lesbian mothers going after this man it is the state government messing everything up. Idiocy.
I completely agree, I am all for gay marriage and they need the same rules as everyone else.
The lawyer who drew up the waiver of parental rights should be sued.
If they didn't use a lawyer, they were foolish.
This seed was not spilled & surely has The Lord's blessing. Paying earthly sacrifices for heavenly blessings is the least this righteous man should do.
I thought the title was KANTER wants sperm donor to pay child support....
You know if were the other way around (donated egg) this wouldn't even be a conversation.
A few questions...
Are same sex marriages legal in Kansas, if so were they Married? If they weren't married, the woman that didn't give birth, I'm guessing the state can't legally force that woman to pay child support. I'm guessing the lesbian couple didn't use a doctor because of financial issues, meaning if they split the state has to step in and use tax money to help the mother raise he daughter after she, and this other woman frivolously thought it would be fun to have a daughter then split not long after. I'd rather this man who didn't know the law on this subject pay then the state using people's hard earned tax dollars.
I feel for this guy, but I also have no problem with the state wanting to protect themselves from having to use the tax money to start helping many more gay couples from finding easy way to have kids without having to make a commitment to these kids and each other.
Them being gay has nothing to do with it, other than bigoted laws not allowing them to marry. The same situation could apply to surrogate mothers/fathers for straight couples.
That may be the dumbest thing I've heard.
I can see the newscasts now.
"The landmark ruling in Kansas concerning the liability incurred by a sperm donor for child support has had a somewhat unintended consequence. Sperm donations, which had been relatively consistent for years nationwide, have come to a grinding halt. It seems that men everywhere have no desire to become legally responsible for paying child support as a result of what they feel is a charitable act. As a result, sperm banks and donor organizations are actively advertising and marketing, doing their best to find donors willing to provide sperm for artificial insemination. All to no avail, apparently."
If a woman gives her baby up for adoption right after birth then the family that adopts takes public assistance does the state go after the birth mother to reimburse the costs?
The laws concerning child custody and child support are so ridiculously messed up and unfair to men. Something's got to give.
The problem here is that the donation was not official. You can't just go and take sperm in a tupperware container to some woman's house and let her impregnate herself.
I understand the guy's grief, but why didn't you go through an actual institution for this? If it wasn't for laws like this, how could you go after anyone for child support. You could claim that any time you impregnate a woman it was a "donation." Usually, sex acts only involved two people so it'd be one person's word against another.
right but that same impregnated woman has a wide array of options that allow her to avoid any financial responsibility for the child, while the male accomplice is bound by whatever decision she makes. I thin men should have 90 days from the time they are formally informed that they have impregnated a woman to have a "male abortion" or later to have a "father's adoption option." In the abortion case the father would have to give the mother the going rate for an abortion and then he'd be in the same financial situation any woman can chose to be in when she doesn't want the baby. In the father's adoption option he'd have to go through the process a mother would go through to give the baby up for adoption, even if only to have the mother adopt.
Fair's fair, right?
Cost? Pretty sure those "institutions" charge.
this is what I was talking about basically.
this is not the same as what happened in Kansas.
No, in Kansas a man gave a couple a sperm sample and signed a paper saying he wasn't going to have anything to do with the child. Your point?