January 1, 2013

"Craigslist sperm donor forced to pay child support to lesbian couple - despite giving up parental rights to the baby BEFORE she was born."

How sympathetic are you to this man's argument?

Why should the father of a child ever be allowed to contract out of responsibility for it? If he is, why shouldn't the state control the extent to which this is permitted? Whatever you think of the mother, what about the child?

220 comments:

1 – 200 of 220   Newer›   Newest»
campy said...

Men can never give up their responsibilities.

Just like women always keep their rights.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Big daddy government will take care of everything, so I am not sure what the problem here is after allowing for the understanding that paperwork might have perhaps been muffed.

rhhardin said...

Children are money in the bank.

rhhardin said...

A good semaritan law is needed.

Quayle said...

A large segment of our country believes that they should have the absolute freedom to contract.

Except for things that the state should absolutely control.

They want to be able to contract to use anything they choose as the root and trunk of the tree, then strictly regulate by law and edict how the branches grow and produce.

JHapp said...

The doctor should pay

Ann Althouse said...

"A large segment of our country believes that they should have the absolute freedom to contract."

Did the child sign the contract?

Do you want other people contracting away YOUR rights?

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Big Daddy RapeyMcfuckeyfucks is not an essential comment to this thread.

Thank you.

Mitchell the Bat said...

"The legal agreement that the three made in 2009 was deemed invalid by Kansas state because they did not use a certified doctor for the insemination."

So it looks like you can contract your way out of your socially imposed duty to support your child.

What's the matter with Kansas?

deborah said...

~standing ovation~

jr565 said...

Althouse wrote:

How sympathetic are you to this man's argument?

Why should the mother of a child ever be allowed to end the life of her baby by aborting it? If she is, why shouldn't the state control the extent to which this is permitted? Whatever you think of the father, what about the mother?

Tis is actually one of the main problems I have with abortion. The premise is that the woman has the right to choose even after the baby is born and is no longer in her uterus. Suddenly its a mans responsibility even though such rights are taken from them during a pregnancy.
If a man says he doesn't want a baby, and the woman decides to choose to keep it then why should the man be obligated to pay for HER choice? she made the choice to keep the baby knowing he wouldn't be in the picture. She could give the kid up for adoption, she could abort the baby. She could choose to give up her motherly rights prior to the birth based on financial considerations. Why can't a man?
If its a woman's right to choose she sould only e able to choose for herself. If the man isn't going to be a dad, then that should be part of the decision making process as to whether to still keep the baby.
And woman make that argument all the time as to why women should be allowed to abort.

Quayle said...

Did the child sign the contract? Do you want other people contracting away YOUR rights?

No, you're right Ann. I'd be much more comfortable having my rights unilaterally taken away by the majority of 9 Harvard educated Catholics and Jews.

In our well ordered society, the great secret to enjoying your inalienable rights as a child is to get past the first two fetal trimesters and be born in the first place.

That's the real secret to having the right to a father.

Pogo said...

The courts, like TV commercials and public universities, tend to follow the Althouse rule of science that the outcomes must always favor women.

Sympathy has nothing to do with it.

Maguro said...

The practical effect of this will be to discourage sperm donation, right? Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but who would ever sign up to be a sperm donor if you're also signing up for 18 years of child support payments?

Quayle said...

"...Catholics and Jews..."

[Used only to highlight the narrowness of the pool, not as a slur.]

Instugator said...

Had the insemination been performed by a doctor - then they would not have gone after the sperm donor. I don't understand how a procedure performed by one person can grant legal immunity vs doing the procedure yourself.

What is to stop women from flocking to Kansas - artificially inseminating themselves and suing anonymous sperm donors for support?

jr565 said...

Ann althouse wrote:
Did the child sign the contract?

Do you want other people contracting away YOUR rights?

do women get contracts from those they are aborting? Or giving away for adoption?
My assumption is a baby shouldn't be killed by its mother or her doctor . Yet those rights are contracted away based on a penumbra.

Astro said...

There is a key detail of the case that is being ignored:

The legal agreement that the three made in 2009 was deemed invalid by Kansas state because they did not use a certified doctor for the insemination.

I'd be very sympathetic with the guy if he'd followed the law, but he/they didn't. He has only himself to blame for not getting legal counsel beforehand and for not making sure a certified doctor performed the operation/insemination.

Harsh Pencil said...

I do not see why this shouldn't apply to all sperm and egg donations, those done with or without a "certified" doctor. The biological parent is the biological parent, and like Althouse says, why should an adult have the power to sign away the rights of a yet to be conceived child. In theory, states are supposed to look out for the interest of the child and they do this usually by assigning a guardian (usually the biological parent) to make decisions for them, but fence in their discretion to exclude decisions obviously against the interest of the child. It seems to me, not ever knowing or getting support from your biological father is one of those cases that is in the interest of the lesbian mother (so she gets a baby) but not the child.

campy said...

So it looks like you can contract your way out of your socially imposed duty to support your child.

Oh please. If the doc had been certified from here to doomsday, the court would have come up with some other flimsy excuse.

Astro said...

Funny that you followed-up the story of the impaling with the story about artificial insemination.

jr565 said...

This ties into the whole,gay marriage thing as well. So, if gays want kids, they are often going to have to go to sperm donors (in the case of lesbians) since lesbians can't have kids together naturally.
And I'd imagine the sperm donor isn't going to be part of the family, since the family consists of two lesbian moms who don't like penis, and this guy is essentially a stranger.

Maybe we should rethink gay marriage to include sperm/egg donors.

Quayle said...

The state has an interest in laws and regulations that are efficient and have the fewest moving parts - in other words, easy to understand and apply.

So far in the state of bio-technology, every child has a physical mom and a dad.

The child needs support until 18.

Put the responsibility on biological Mom and Dad. Simple and efficient.

This leads to the more interesting but perhaps simpler question, which is (if it ever becomes possible) whether a cloned child should be the responsibility of the father and mother of the person from who the source cells were taken, or the responsibility of the lab technicians that did the cloning?

I would imagine it would have to be the latter.

Ann Althouse said...

"What is to stop women from flocking to Kansas - artificially inseminating themselves and suing anonymous sperm donors for support?"

Take note that it was the state of Kansas that brought the suit. Consider the taxpayers who are on the hook if children are not supported. That's why men aren't allowed to leave the sperm and move on.

Now, facilitating some artificial insemination for infertile or non-male-partnered women can be something that the people of a state choose to do, but in doing it, they can and should set the limits, because there is the interest of the child to be protected.

You may say, what role does the doctor play here, but I presume the doctor provides a safeguard against fraud.

tim maguire said...

This is a stupid and shortsighted decision. A disaster for childless couples hoping to find a sperm donor.

edutcher said...

Oy!

The guy is forced to pay support, presumably, because the, um..., women wanted this to be about THEM.

The only one of the two listed as a parent (whatever happened to "Heather Has Two Mommies"?) has decided she doesn't like other, uh..., girls so she's got a guy, but is on welfare while the other one can't work (reason unspecified), but neither of them sued this poor, dumb schlub - it was the state (bet we have Kathleen Sibelius to thank), which stuck its nose in business all three wanted kept private (small wonder).

Yeah, it's time to take the Pennsylvania Long Rifles down from the mantle and march on Lexington again.

SGT Ted said...

Yet more evidence that to a disturbing number of women and the legal profession, men are merely wallet carrying sperm banks.

MadisonMan said...

I agree with campy -- even if the doctor was "certified" (whatever that means), the Courts would have found another way to get the BioDad's money. Lesson: If you're going to provide sperm, give it to someone who will stay healthy and working.

James said...

You may say, what role does the doctor play here, but I presume the doctor provides a safeguard against fraud.

Sure, let's trust Dr. Michael Kamrava and Nadya Suleman.

jr565 said...

Ann althouse wrote:
Take note that it was the state of Kansas that brought the suit. Consider the taxpayers who are on the hook if children are not supported. That's why men aren't allowed to leave the sperm and move on.

if they are a gay couple, then one of the women in the couple should be assuming the role of the dad. If this were an adoption and the child were placed in a home, and that family went on welfare would we then make the natural parents have to cough up bucks? I thought that's why we placed the child with the adoptive parents in the first place?

And if we are going to consider the taxpayers, what about this couple going on welfare? Is that not going to be paid by taxpayers?

jr565 said...

Madisonman wrote:
Lesson: If you're going to provide sperm, give it to someone who will stay healthy and working.

and not lesbians, apparently.

Writ Small said...

This is fair because surrogate mothers are required to pay child support.

SGT Ted said...

I think we need to ban lesbians from naing children, if the State is just going to pick sperm donors pockets.

There is no fucntional difference between a doctor assissted insemination and a do-it-yourselfer. The legal definition is a bullshit money grab.

And really, the State doesn't *really* give two shits about the children. This is about the money the State will get to skim off the top for "adminstrative fees" as they will do the collecting and disbursing.

Crimso said...

"The state has an interest in laws and regulations that are efficient and have the fewest moving parts - in other words, easy to understand and apply."

Quite the opposite. As a matter of securing as much power as possible (something all governments instinctively do), it makes more sense for the laws to be as convoluted and complicated as possible. That makes it easier to bend them to achieve whatever ends are desired in any given situation. When everyone is a felon then it is a natural consequence that only some will be prosecuted (those the government finds most troublesome-to it, not the people).

It's the citizenry who have the interest you stated.

rhhardin said...

It's not protecting the child but the state, money-wise.

The child's okay either way.

James said...

And if we are going to consider the taxpayers, what about this couple going on welfare? Is that not going to be paid by taxpayers?

That's the reason the state is attempting to recoup the cost of welfare by going after the father.

I wonder if the mother gave birth in a hospital. The states now provide financial incentives to hospitals to obtain the name of the father for every child delivered in hospitals. So now you have "deputy registrars" who are actual employees of the hospital who literally do every thing to make sure a father is named on the birth certificate before mother and child are discharged.

jr565 said...

If a father can donate sperm can't renounce his parental rights even if he is just a sperm donor and had no intent of being a parent to the child, should a woman have the right to force him to renounce his right to be a parent simply because she has a uterus?

Rick67 said...

I am informed that in English Common Law the state will not enforce certain kinds of contracts.

But them I'm not an attorney or professor of law. Is that correct? Certain contracts are so obscene/abusive/ridiculous that the state won't honor them?

Astro said...

Nowhere is a DNA test mentioned. If I were the guy I'd demand the state do a DNA test to prove the daughter is his, biologically. I would not assume the turkey baster method is reliable.

(Which also makes me wonder if the child is legally considered a 'bastered'.)

damikesc said...

The man should have absolute power to do this. Freedom of choice and all.

Did the child sign the contract?

Do you want other people contracting away YOUR rights?


As law stands --- the contract was signed when the child had zero legal standing whatsoever and was simply an extension of the woman.

The child isn't contracted when it is aborted, either. Why are its rights then immaterial?

Take note that it was the state of Kansas that brought the suit. Consider the taxpayers who are on the hook if children are not supported. That's why men aren't allowed to leave the sperm and move on.

...but women can change their mind? Either we have equality or we do not.

I agree with campy -- even if the doctor was "certified" (whatever that means), the Courts would have found another way to get the BioDad's money. Lesson: If you're going to provide sperm, give it to someone who will stay healthy and working.

...or use a fake name and not do it in your home state.

This is fair because surrogate mothers are required to pay child support.

Are they? I have no idea.

Pogo said...

It's all rather simple.

Men are milch cows. All results flow from that.

MadisonMan said...

Are surrogate Moms required to pay Child Support?

(I can't tell if the OP there is being sarcastic)

bpm4532 said...

After reading the article, there's just soo much to comment on, particularly the lesbian couple, but I'll restrain myself.

I guess this means the state can pretty much do what the heck it pleases. The next step is for it not to matter if the act was performed by a doctor, as long as the state finds it has to pay, it's going to want to extract that from the people. The next step after that is to go after people who give up kids for adoption if the adoptive parents fall on hard times.

Here are some rules.
1. Don't donate sperm.
2. If you can't have children, adopt.
3. If you get pregnant, carry the baby to term, then raise it yourself.
4. If you don't want to have a baby, don't have sex, but accept the risks and responsibilities if you do have sex.

James said...

Affidavits of Paternity were authorized under the Welfare Reform Act and the feds and states now compensate hospitals for getting signed affivadits from putative fathers even when they aren't named on the birth certificate. The state's interest is to have a father on record in the event the mother applies for welfare.

I know of several instances where men visiting women who had just delivered were badgered or even threatened in attempts to get the to sign affivadits of paternity. And once that signed you're on the hook for child support even if a subsequent DNA test proves you're not the father.

Michael K said...

This guy is dumber than I realized. He answered a Craig's list ad ? Jesus ! I don't give that kid much chance in life.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Did the child sign the contract?

Do you want other people contracting away YOUR rights?


Oh, stop pretending to speak for the kid.

Women do this incessantly, conflating their desire for the "glory" of motherhood with what's actually good for the child. And now, in a case like this, where kids overwhelmingly tend to prefer as little involvement or support on the part of a disinterested parent as possible. It gives them a clean "break".

Why should the father of a child ever be allowed to contract out of responsibility for it?

It helps square the circle of American women reducing the fathers of their children (or of their share of an estate) to bank accounts.

Sperm donors and bank accounts. Give the guy a break. If you can't give him his humanity back then at least let him have a human right (if one exclusive to his gender, as women have) or two.

Lauderdale Vet said...

"Did the child sign the contract?"

An interesting argument, especially in the context of discussing abortion.

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

In Kansas, insemination with medical assistance is subject to the intrusive intervention of social workers and social service agencies. This includes a formal home study, background checks, modest psychological evaluations and proof of financial stability. It is essentially everything required of an adoption, and the social workers can keep coming to your home more or less forever to verify the "well-being" of the child.

Social workers in this state have a marked tendency to believe that only financially "comfortable" people are suitable parents for insemination and adoption. If your 17 and want to keep your baby, well, Honey, we can get you on welfare and you can raise that baby yourself. We'll help you.

Since the donor in this case does foster care he should impose a very blunt condition (and make everyone squirm) -- I'll support this child if and only if my wife and I receive full custody and are able to complete a formal adoption.

A home with a mother and a father is a vastly better outcome for that child than a couple of devious and financially unreliable lesbians.

n said...

Bachman Turner Overdrive:

Oooh, oooh, she looked at me with big brown eyes
And said

You ain't seen nothin' yet
B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet
Here's something that you never gonna forget
B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Next people will be suing women who give their kids up for adoption for financial support.

What a turd of legal reasoning.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Ann, there is no way this man should be regarded as the child's father for support purposes. He and the two intended parents agreed on this, and in fact still agree; they are both supporting him against the State of Kansas, despite the fact that they are now separated.

The law is ridiculous on this subject. Men can be and have been required to support children who are provably not their own biological children; some staggering fraction of child support cases in divorce (somewhere north of one in ten, IIRC) where a paternity test was done prove to involve children the husband didn't father. In such cases the mother probably has some idea who the actual biological father is, but the ex-husband is the closest target to hand, so he is the one who pays.

OTOH, in other cases all that matters seems to be whose sperm it is. I remember one case in which a man who had oral (and no other) sex wearing a condom had to pay child support after the woman fished the condom out of the trash and inseminated herself. Underage boys have been made to pay child support to adult women from pregnancies resulting from statutory rape.

You ask, "What about the child?" The child in this case was conceived by the desire of two women who voluntarily took on the task of supporting her. That she could not exist at all without a man's involvement doesn't mean that the State of Kansas gets to garnish his wages for eighteen years on her behalf.

Nomennovum said...

"Did the child sign the contract?

Do you want other people contracting away YOUR rights?"


The child lost no rights when the father contracted with the mother(s). One party assumed the obligation to raise the child from the other party.

If the other party is unable to meet its obligations, then the child is left in the same position he would be in if both parents were unable to care for him.

I am curious: Why aren't these deadbeat mothers in jail, ike any man woud be in simiar circumstances?

"Do you want other people contracting away YOUR rights?"

Which bring to mind adoption: Can the state go after the biological parents, if the adopting parents defaut on their obligations? If not, why not?

O Ritmo Segundo said...

I am curious: Why aren't these deadbeat mothers in jail, ike any man woud be in simiar circumstances?

Lol. Because pregnancy is the same glorious, civilization-defining act as when dogs do it, don'cha know?

Bender said...

It has nothing to do with the rights of the father or the mother or the mother's female lover. It has entirely to do with the fundamental natural right of the child to receive the support of his or her parents. This right is inalienable, that is, it cannot be given up -- it certainly cannot be waived by the parents themeselves.

The child has a right to financial support from both the biological father and the biological mother and, if some third party wishes to interject herself, then also a right of support from the mother's girlfriend/"spouse".

Martinkh said...

I guess despite all claims to the contrary, women cannot be held responsible for their actions, and lesbians cannot have kids on their own and raise them like any other parents.

Can we remove women from EEO and Affirmative Action now, because obviously our legal system recognizes that they are not competent to enter into contracts.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Bender -

Make sure you let the state and foster parents everywhere know of your intent to sue women who commit the egregious sin of giving their kids up for adoption. Thar's gold in them thar pockets!

No more tolerance for halfsies! You're either in it or you're not, ladies!

Clyde said...

Let the lesbians develop parthenogenesis if they want to reproduce. For would-be nice-guy sperm donors: No good deed goes unpunished.

Unknown said...

Forcing a woman to be the mother of a child she's not ready for - the worst crime a human being can commit.

Forcing a man to be the father of a child he's not ready for - Tuesday.

James said...

The child has a right to financial support from both the biological father and the biological mother and, if some third party wishes to interject herself, then also a right of support from the mother's girlfriend/"spouse".

Really?

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Not going to believe ANYONE is serious about holding this guy responsible, until I see equal passion directed at the legion of Black 'fathers' who have abandoned their children - and the Black 'mothers' who refuse (sometimes can't) name the 'father'.

You are either serious about holding men accountable, or you are not.

So what is it, Libs?

timkb4cq said...

In this case I believe the courts have no option. The law is clear.
However, I am sympathetic to this man's situation as in this case the law is an ass.

It's widely agreed that it is in the public interest to allow sperm donation & that sperm donors should not be considered parents, and the law was written to formalize this. The insertion of the requirement that the insemination be done by a certified doctor is, at it's heart, just restraint of trade. Unfortunately, that doesn't render the law invalid.

This is something the Kansas legislature needs to fix. One would think given Kansas' extreme laws enforcing the privacy of adoption proceedings that they should be amenable to such an amendment. But I'm not holding my breath...

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

The basic Kansas law here is very sound -- if you father a child, you are financially responsible for it.

The case in question is an unintended consequence out at the fringes of that law. As a taxpayer I don't want my government supporting children when the father can be identified. I suspect the state's position will be that all paperwork to the contrary you cannot prove this was not a "naturally" conceived child -- which in the case of medical insemination is easy.

My guess is that the guy will lose at the county level because Shawnee County's family judge is a fairly hard-core man-hater. Once it goes to appeal, reason will prevail.

The basic law, however, is a good one, and actually rather pro-family.

ndspinelli said...

Althouse ends 2012 and begins 2013 as diablo advocatus.

betamax3000 said...

Plausible deniability. He was having consensual sex with a turkey baster, causing no harm to anyone, when a gang of unruly lesbians (you know the type) forcibly took his baster away from him...

Saint Croix said...

Why should the father of a child ever be allowed to contract out of responsibility for it? If he is, why shouldn't the state control the extent to which this is permitted? Whatever you think of the mother, what about the child?

People donate sperm out of respect for lesbian couples, or single women, or any other people who cannot have children of their own.

Thus, if you want to respect gay marriage, or single moms--and lots of liberals say they respect gay marriage and single moms--then you have to respect adoption, and not destroy it like an idiot.

But if you're hostile to gay marriage, and single moms, and think only men and women should reproduce, and think human biology is important, then of course you would say, "sorry, dad, you're the father. Baby needs father."

I think babies do need fathers, actually. But I also think it is dishonest and vile for the state to legalize sperm donation, and then to obliterate the legal foundation that makes sperm donation possible.

Or, shorter version, what a clusterfuck.

cubanbob said...

What a bizarre society we live in when a kid's financial rights trump it's actual right to life.

As long as woman have the sole right to decide on whether or not to continue a pregnancy why should a man be held financially responsible unless he chose to be responsible?
In any other context the party to the contract ( in the woman's role) would be held to be the responsible party.
Considering that ten percent of kids born in wedlock are not biologically the father's child, shouldn't those woman liable for fraud?

Pettifogger said...

"Why should the father of a child ever be allowed to contract out of responsibility for it?"

That is, of course, an ex post question. The ex ante question is why would any man ever agree to be a sperm donor?

Another question is whether women should have the freedom to conceive through sperm donations? If women should have that freedom, you'll need to set up a legal framework that makes that reasonably possible. Imposing child-support obligations on the donor is to say that women should not have that freedom.

Peter Hoh said...

If you're gonna be a dad, be a stay-at-home dad.

That way, no one will ever look at you as a cash cow.

Saint Croix said...

And by "father," Althouse, I do not mean "check in the mail."

Beaver7216 said...

Ahh, it continues. Women have the right to choose-to take the fetus to term or not. And the choice can be made at any time. And women can choose to put the child up for adoption, with no obligations. And the women can choose to cancel the adoption papers and say that they want the child back.

As for equal protection and the man, the choice is made at conception and it is final with no chance of reprieve.

And the fetus/child has no rights at all.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Did the child sign the contract?

Do you want other people contracting away YOUR rights?


Does the child also have a right to LIVE? Do you want your mother contracting...I mean aborting away your life?

Xmas said...

Mind you, this is Kansas. The state made the victim of molestation pay for the child conceived by the act of statutory rape by his babysitter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer

cubanbob said...

Why aren't the mothers forced to bear the costs of child rearing? It was their choice to get and stay pregnant. Why should I as a taxpayer be obligated to pay their child support?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Take note that it was the state of Kansas that brought the suit. Consider the taxpayers who are on the hook if children are not supported. That's why men aren't allowed to leave the sperm and move on.

Then perhaps we should rethink this "let the state pay for everything" mentality. If people are forced to support themselves, they will also be forced to make wiser choices.

Fernandinande said...

Why should the father of a child ever be allowed to contract out of responsibility for it?

A man's right to choose: no killing necessary.

And, there was no force and no fraud on his part - unlike what the state is doing to him.

If he is, why shouldn't the state control the extent to which this is permitted?

Why shouldn't the state control the extent to which women can "choose"? Why can women get away with not seeking child support, but men can't? Perhaps women they should be charged with a crime if they fail to seek it: why not? Why shouldn't the state control every aspect of everyone's home life?

Whatever you think of the mother, what about the child?

It's probably bad to have unstable lesbian parents, but failing some evidence of abuse or neglect, the state should mind its own business.

Saint Croix said...

What a bizarre society we live in when a kid's financial rights trump it's actual right to life.

The state likes money.

Abortion = more money for us

Court-ordered child support = more money for us

It's all about control, really. The state likes to make babies disappear, and fathers reappear. The state likes to snap its fingers and bend reality to its will. The state likes to play god.

And the state likes money.

(The liberal theory that more abortion = more money is of course based on liberal scarcity theory, which is all about splitting the pie. You can see Justice Blackmun's theories about abortion and economics here, where he says that welfare is a constitutional right. Specifically he's claiming a right to have abortions funded by taxpayers. Note his hostility to the poor, calling poverty a "cancer," and abortion is his cure. Also note he does not support a welfare right to food or shelter. He's like Santa Claus, if Santa Claus only has a knife, poisons, and anesthesia in his bag).

betamax3000 said...

Maybe there should be a tax hike on men making more than 250,000 sperm.

For the children.

Shouting Thomas said...

That's why men aren't allowed to leave the sperm and move on.

I nominate this as your most lyrical statement ever, Althouse.

Dylan should write a song about this. R. Crumb should commence drawing a caricature.

Maybe, I'll write the song.

betamax3000 said...

How many miles must a sperm walk before you can call him a man...

G Joubert said...

Reason number 647 why gay marriage is a horrible idea.

Michael Haz said...

Guys, just don't give your sperm to lesbians or single straight women. No matter what they promise up front, you're going to be on the hook for child support.

In fact, since a lot of men are trapped into marrying women who "accidentally" forgot to renew the bc prescription a few months ago, or who self-inseminated while cheerily offering to flush the condom, the best thing for single men these days is celibacy or (reversible) vasectomy.

If you think I'm overstating this, you haven't been among groups of 30-40 year old men recently.

Darcy said...

Absolutely sympathetic and on the side of this man. This guy was totally used and abused by all-powerful women.

Ugh. One of the things I am consistently drumming into my son's head at every opportunity is how little HIS rights will be respected if he were to be part of creating a life.

Shouting Thomas said...

It helps square the circle of American women reducing the fathers of their children (or of their share of an estate) to bank accounts.

A glimmer of a notion that men have rights, too, sparks to life in Ritmo's head.

Congratulations, kid.

Bob Boyd said...

I wonder if the "a doctor has to squeeze the bulb" clause was written into the Kansas law.
If not, shouldn't the legislature have to address problems with the law?
The donor was acting in good faith it seems, not trying to get out of responsibility for an impulsive act that resulted in a child.
He may have contracted away the child's rights, but without that option the child would not exist to have rights in the first place.
Strange he was adopting all those kids, yet wants to avoid his own.

betamax3000 said...

If Monica Lewinsky had thought ahead and used her blue dress for interior motives....

David said...

The main lesson is that you should not donate sperm unless you are willing to pay for the child. This should cut down on lesbian births quite effectively over time (perhaps not the intended consequence of the rule.)

As for the notion that the child was not a party to the contract, the child is not a party to marital settlement agreements either. Or to prenuptial agreements. They impact the child's rights, with the state through the court providing whatever protection the state deems appropriate. This is the same situation, but here the state has decided that there should be three potentially responsible parents--the couple and the donor. It's not clear to me why the child is losing "rights" if the child already has two responsible parents.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Bender,

It has nothing to do with the rights of the father or the mother or the mother's female lover. It has entirely to do with the fundamental natural right of the child to receive the support of his or her parents. This right is inalienable, that is, it cannot be given up -- it certainly cannot be waived by the parents themselves.

Can't it? Does such a thing as "giving a baby up for adoption" not exist in your world? Get back to me when an adoptive mother goes on welfare and Kansas tracks down the birth parents.

Kelly said...

This guy thought he was doing a good deed. He didn't even accept the lousy fifty bucks initially offered. These type of woman don't need a man...until they need a man for his money. The courts need to catch up with the times. He needs to go for full out custody and get child support from both "mothers".

Shouting Thomas said...

Meanwhile, in other sperm news...

Fellow Illini, Hugh Hefner gets married again! This time to a bottle blond 60 years his junior!

Congrats, Hef! And, may your sperm find only its intended target.

No sperm shall be left behind!

Michael Ryan said...

I think it's a very conservative decision. Basically the court is saying that "no, that (non-maternal) lesbian is not the parent of that child. Only a man and woman can be parents." Or, am I understanding this incorrectly?

Darcy said...

Heyyyyy! You got something against enhanced blondes, ST? x-(

Shouting Thomas said...

Heyyyyy! You got something against enhanced blondes, ST? x-(

I'm a brunette guy, but I'm also an all around horny old bastard (make that Old Dawg)... so no!

Gahrie said...


Why should the father of a child ever be allowed to contract out of responsibility for it?


In a perfect world? Never. In this world, where the mother is allowed to do so by killing the child in question, it is a simple matter of fairness which normally is the trump of all values to you.


If he is, why shouldn't the state control the extent to which this is permitted?

This seems like pure hypocrisy coming from someone who believes in current abortion law.

Whatever you think of the mother, what about the child?

We pro lifers have been asking this since 1973.

Jane said...

Once upon a time, sperm donation was allowed for married couples only -- so that the husband was automatically the legally-recognized father. Creating a system of sperm donation for single women (whether with a lesbian partner or not) creates a system of legally fatherless children.

In a perfect world, in which abortion wasn't an issue, for legal reasons or because it didn't occur to anyone to do it, surrendering a child for adoption would have to require the consent of both parties, and either an identified set of replacement parents or the consent of the state due to the fact that it's in the best interest of the child, and based on an assessment that the parents cannot be expected to support the child (or a child support assessment). In the current world, a woman can surrender a child for adoption fairly easily as an incentive to not get an abortion instead.

Anyway, look at the contract the sperm donor and the women signed: the women agreed to hold him harmless from any action the state might take. There's no way two individuals can make any promises about what the government may or may not do. At best, they could promise that if he's ever held responsible for child support, each of them will individually be liable to reimburse him them the money, and that it would be an enforceable debt to be collected at any point in the future.

betamax3000 said...

Re:"Did the child sign the contract?

Do you want other people contracting away YOUR rights?"

Interesting that we worry about the financial stability of the child when the government can hang it on a specific father, while that same government can -- and is -- saddling that child (and others) with monstrous debt. Did the child sign THAT contract?

MaxedOutMama said...

The man unquestionably has the right of it - under Kansas' dubious theory, Marotta's attorney is quite right in claiming that any woman in KS can order sperm from a sperm bank, impregnate herself, and then list the the sperm bank as father.

The obvious lesson is that one shouldn't chose to be a sperm or egg donor at all to an unstable couple such as this or to a single person. The fact that this couple are lesbians has nothing to do with it (except perhaps that they adopted 8 children with one legal parent - how the heck did that happen?).

It's not as if women don't get knocked up by other than their legal spouses all the time, and in most states, the genetic donor can be pursued as long as the the legal spouse disavows parentage. One would bet that the odds are considerably better of that happening when the legal spouse knows perfectly well that he/she is not the child's other genetic parent.

As for the chiid's rights here, they are not impacted. The child will get whatever the child is entitled to get under KS child welfare laws - the issue is whether the taxpayers will be partially refunded by the sperm donor, not the child's welfare.

NoraCharles said...

I don't understand why the biological mother's former partner isn't the one being pursued for support.

Could a sperm donor sue for visitation? I bet the mother wouldn't like that one bit.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

I always thought it kind of interesting that in a big city a bit more tame and conservative than NY or LA, Chicago actually honored (if that's the right word) Hugh Hefner by naming a street after him. Not that I'd ever object, but just couldn't see why something like that wouldn't have happened in Vegas if anywhere.

It's funny. I'm much happier with the pace of life, details and realism of the East coast (or other aspects of the West), but the women were probably nicest to me in Chicago.

Gahrie said...

It must also be noted that a woman can impregnate herself with a man's sperm without his consent, and the man is still forced to pay child support. This includes cases in which a woman preserves sperm from oral sex and impregnates herself. (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20050309.html) There are cases in which the man and woman make a contract in which he agrees to provide her with sperm, and she agrees to free him from all parental responsibility including support. (Estes v. Albers and Straub v. B.M.T. by Todd) The courts have ruled that in these cases the father is still liable for child support.








http://gahrie.blogspot.com/2006/03/roe-v-wade-for-men.html

Darcy said...

Well said, Gahrie.

It is sad that the question of whether the "child" signed the contract is so much easier to contemplate because the child was allowed to live. Had it been an aborted fetus, it would not have been PC "fair" to have ever called this life a child.

Michael Ryan said...

I think it's a very conservative decision. Basically the court is saying that "no, that (non-maternal) lesbian is not the parent of that child. Only a man and woman can be parents." Or, am I understanding this incorrectly?

Fernandinande said...

Ms Bauer and Ms Schreiner, who separated in 2010, plan to help Mr Marotta fight the state's decision, saying they are 'forever grateful' for the child he gave their family.

All they have to do is give the money back to him - let's see if they do it.

Laura said...

So does the little girl have foster parents yet?

Laura said...

So does the little girl have foster parents yet?

O Ritmo Segundo said...

I think the Amish have it right when it comes to certain ideas. I've become fascinated with them as of late.

Sex is a form of social rumspringa. It's an area of humanity that should always be open to leaving some bit of experimentation and freedom to it.

We have the technology to do that more responsibly than ever now. Of course there are potentially messy social (or emotional) consequences, but that comes with most worthwhile things in life. Some things you just have to take a chance on.

betamax3000 said...

None of this would matter if we gave lesbians the legal right to have their own functioning testicles.

betamax3000 said...

RE: "Of course there are potentially messy social (or emotional) consequences..."

I think "messy" in this situation is more than just social or emotional.

Why God made Kleenex.

X said...

it's in the child's best interest to be taken out of the home of the wheels off indigent lesbian with a history of failed relationships and custody go to the biological father with the stable family. the lesbian mom should be required to pay child support or go directly to jail. but the child's best interest is not what the court will choose.

Shouting Thomas said...

Time to zone out, forget about pressing social issues and watch some absolutely pointless football bowl game.

Didn't get home from the gig until 2:30 a.m. I'm blasted.

Go Northwestern! End that bowl drought. At least the Cats are Big Ten, so I've got a sort of rooting interest.

Shouting Thomas said...

None of this would matter if we gave lesbians the legal right to have their own functioning testicles.

A new fundamental human right is discovered!

What kind of bigot would deny lesbians their bolt-on scrotums?

n.n said...

A baby (i.e. human life), from conception, has both a mother and father, and possibly one or more guardians who may be male, female, or some combination thereof.

As for the rights of this new human life, according to our national charter: "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Our Constitution further recognizes through the Fourteenth Amendment that "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Eugenics, Roe vs Wade, and the euphemistically termed "reproductive rights" describe activities proscribed by our law.

betamax3000 said...

RE: "What kind of bigot would deny lesbians their bolt-on scrotums?"

I would think they would be screw-on.

n.n said...

Shouting Thomas:

Donate life. Donate your testicles!

I was right. We are nothing more than a collection of objects which remain cohesive for a short time and then are heard no more. This is why, whether through democratic leverage or physical coercion, the Left is right and the Right is wrong.

Bob Boyd said...

I think the judge did the right thing. The donor knowingly created a child because it made him feel good to do so.
He should have thought more about the child's needs and what he would do if things didn't go perfectly as planned, which they never do.
He's clearly a wanker.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

What kind of bigot would deny lesbians their bolt-on scrotums?

Well, if you can dangle them from a truck, then why not?

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

" any woman in KS can order sperm from a sperm bank, impregnate herself"

That is quite simply not true. Sperm banks can ship legally only to a medical office (in Kansas, at least), and a medical office will not perform insemination unless approved by the department of social welfare for the specific female involved.

betamax3000 said...

Is there a law exception excusing masturbation in good faith?

X said...

United: Ms Bauer and Ms Schreiner celebrating their same-sex union. The couple adopted eight children together during their relationship but have not been given the same rights as straight couples

what a fucking farce. the state does not give a shit about best interest of children.

betamax3000 said...

I once responded to a Craigslist request for a sperm donation. They weren't home so I left it on the doorstep.

betamax3000 said...

Scared the neighbors.

Jerome said...

"It's widely agreed that it is in the public interest to allow sperm donation & that sperm donors should not be considered parents, and the law was written to formalize this."

Widely agreed in the space between your ears, maybe. These three foul balls should never have been allowed to play house with a real baby.

Pianoman said...

Because if you don't allow anonymous sperm donation, pretty soon you won't have sperm donors any more. Why would someone take that risk?

It's like journalists being able to keep their sources anonymous. If sources aren't allowed to be anonymous, soon there won't be any more sources. Why would someone spill their guts to a journalist if they could go to jail for doing so?

Sometimes society is better off by allowing anonymity.

betamax3000 said...

It all comes down to money. In the future I hope the prospective parents would lend the donor a hand.

I'm going to get this thread to 200 if I have to do it myself.

betamax3000 said...

Let's not pity the poor sperm donor: he had it, coming.

betamax3000 said...

If this kind of thing keeps happening sperm donors are going to take their balls and go home.

wyo sis said...

If this isn't a screaming reason to keep your pants zipped if you're a man then nothing is. No wonder men in Japan end up married to pillows.
It doesn't seem to register that traditional families are the best way to insure a stable society.
And don't give me a bunch of flak about how people should have the right to explore their sexuality outside the constraints of traditional morality. What people want to do and what they should do to be moral has a long history, and it has never been a good idea to screw up the traditional family.
Maybe traditional morality is considered moral for a reason. It works if you want to have the best chance of creating the next generation of productive happy people.

Pianoman said...

@MichaelHaz: "Guys, just don't give your sperm to lesbians or single straight women. No matter what they promise up front, you're going to be on the hook for child support."

Or just stop donating sperm completely, which is probably more likely. The lawyers can shriek, "IT'S ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!" all they want to -- and I guess that's true -- but the end result will be fewer sperm donors.

But the Left is all about good intentions. Actual results are secondary. Just ask David Gregory.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

And don't give me a bunch of flak about how people should have the right to explore their sexuality outside the constraints of traditional morality. What people want to do and what they should do to be moral has a long history, and it has never been a good idea to screw up the traditional family.

Ok, so missionary style only, and without contraception, right? Do let us have the straight scoop.

Should we reinstitute the legislative acts against oral sex, too?

The long awaited outlawing of unnecessary orgasms is fast approaching.

Here come the Dick Police.

betamax3000 said...

This situation can only create more confusion for sperm donors and their lawyers: pretty soon the left hand won't know what the right hand is doing...

Michael Haz said...

But the Left is all about good intentions. Actual results are secondary. Just ask David Gregory.

Or serial sperm donor David Crosby.

Shouting Thomas said...

Ritmo,

I suggest that you spend some time with Filipinos, learning about their approach.

It isn't necessary to advocate prudery in order to create a society that places the preservation of the traditional family first.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

I wonder what someone from the state of Wyoming, with its Bucking Bronco mascot, would think of Trojan naming one of their brands of condom after Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

It isn't necessary to advocate prudery in order to create a society that places the preservation of the traditional family first.

I completely agree. But aren't Latin countries (and some in the Mediterranean?) just as good at this?

O Ritmo Segundo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
O Ritmo Segundo said...

It isn't necessary to advocate prudery in order to create a society that places the preservation of the traditional family first.

Actually, I have a feeling that you're using the idea of a "traditional family" that conflicts with how other societies define it. I think they place much greater emphasis and value on extended families than we do.

30yearProf said...

Women can still get inseminated the old fashioned way. By a man she'll never know in someone's unlocked car in the dark parking lot of a big city bar.

Unless his DNA is on record, he zips up and walks away still a free man.

Enforceable contracts, without "gotcha's" like the Kansas law, are much better than parking lot "agreements".

Marla Singer said...

Pretty much all my sympathy is with the man in this case. Children have a right to be supported by their parents, but in this case, this man is a sperm donor, who could have (and apparently should have) remained anonymous. If lesbian couples want children, then they should have the same responsibilities as heterosexual parents. I.e., if the one partner wants out of the relationship, they're still on the hook with regard to financial support for the child. When a hetero couple who has used a sperm donor breaks up, the state doesn't go after the sperm donor; they go after the father, the one who was raising the child, assuming he isn't the one with custody. As far as I can tell, this poor guy made an agreement in good faith, and the lesbians really need to get their sh*t together. Gay couples who would like children should take note, because I would suspect agreements like this will be harder to come by, and this does not speak well of gays' commitments to the responsibilities of parenthood and marriage.

30yearProf said...

JR565 hits the nail on the head.

SHE has the "last clear chance" to avoid the problem. By abortion. It's her decision, and her's alone, that the child be born. From HER decision follows every "need" that the child has. She decides, she pays.

There is no logical reason, after Roe v. Wade, for making the man pay EXCEPT for the outdated, often false ASSunption that he has more money than she and he can spare it more easily.

Judges who order child support in excess of the man's adjusted gross income are, indeed, smoking "pot" on the bench.

Marla Singer said...

My husband is Japanese, and when he first found out you could paid in this country for various bodily fluids (plasma, sperm), he thought it was pretty cool. He sold his plasma for a while, until he got tired of it. I told him I wasn't at all comfortable with him donating sperm, because I guess as his wife and mother of his children, I want sole rights to use of his sperm, but now I sure am glad I didn't let him do that.

Keep it up, betamax.

campy said...

SHE has the "last clear chance" to avoid the problem. By abortion. It's her decision, and her's alone, that the child be born.

Even after birth, she still has the "drop off at firehouse" option.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

betamax3000 said...

If Monica Lewinsky had thought ahead and used her blue dress for interior motives....


But Bill's almost certainly sterile,
and since WAY back.

Inga said...

The sperm donor has no obligation. The child will be taken care of by the social contract in welfare or SSI.

Saint Croix said...

Keep it up, betamax.

Yes, funny is awesome. We could use more funny around here. Betamax is like the internet love spawn of Trooper York.

wyo sis said...

As I expected O Ritmo warp speeds to a completely ridiculous conclusion. Like there is nothing between the missionary position and bestiality.

timkb4cq said...

"It's widely agreed that it is in the public interest to allow sperm donation & that sperm donors should not be considered parents, and the law was written to formalize this."

Jerome said: -> Widely agreed in the space between your ears, maybe. These three foul balls should never have been allowed to play house with a real baby.

Not just there, but widely agreed in the U.S., as 20 states have laws that a sperm donor for artificial insemination is never considered the father of the child barring either a written agreement or being the husband of the mother. Another half dozen or so legally recognize the husband as the legitimate father of an A.I. child but don't address the unmarried woman case.

This Kansas supreme court decision
KMH and KCH, Crt. No.96,102 (Kansas October 26, 2007).
seems to give the donor some hope of winning on appeal in that the concurring opinion explicitly recognizes that the provision requiring the written agreement "appears to be aimed at protecting both parties from unwanted duties and/or obligations being imposed without their consent in the very limited factual situation to which it applies.

Inga said...

Wyo Sis, whaaaat? You and Ritmo discussing sexual positions?

Damn I'm jealous.;)

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The child will be taken care of by the social contract in welfare or SSI.

I didn't sign that contract.

jr565 said...

Between the two of them they have 8 adopted kids!
Of those adoptions, how many times must the birth parents now be called to cough up child support now that this woman has decided to go on welfare? Why shouldn't they? It's the same premise. the kids need the money. It's their DNA. Pay up.
Maybe she shouldn't have adopted 8 kids in the first place.

Inga said...

DBQ, even if Romney would've won, the social contract would still be in place, we are all signatories (is that the right word?)

That is until the Apokalypse hits. ;)

Robert Cook said...

The sperm donor never agreed to be a parent and he wasn't a parent...he merely provided the biological material to enable two women who wished to parent a child to have a child. They are the parents, and all financial responsibility for the child should lie with them.

Synova said...

I'll go back and read... my opinion on the surface of it?

Sure, if he has to pay support... give him custody.

Period.

If he wants it or not.

But the ladies lose custody completely.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Like there is nothing between the missionary position and bestiality.

Well, I guess you could have humans mating with animals face-to-face missionary style, but from what I hear the animals aren't inclined to do it this way and might make it even more difficult.

You just had to go there, wyo. Bestiality? Really?

Saint Croix said...

As I expected O Ritmo warp speeds to a completely ridiculous conclusion. Like there is nothing between the missionary position and bestiality.

That gave me the giggles. If this was volleyball, wyo sis just did a power spike right on Ritmo's face. Now he's got a big red mark. He's wandering around in a daze, telling people in bikinis how Amish they are.

betamax3000 said...

RE: "Between the two of them they have 8 adopted kids!"

Reminds me of the 70s show "Eight is Enough" - starred Dick Van Patten.

'Van Patten' is Dutch for 'tired balls'.

Went out of my way to avoid the 'Dick' joke. Restraint.

Inga said...

Amish in bikinis!

Love it, what a visual. Would they need to keep the little cap on though?

Synova said...

Ah, okay then. The mothers are supporting the right of the sperm donor to not have to support the child. It's the state that's being a putz.

OTOH, who pays the bills, makes the rules. Anytime we turn to government to be our parent and care for us, we're reduced to childhood powerlessness.

This should be a lesson to anyone who thinks that government can take over healthcare without telling you what to do.

Synova said...

"Between the two of them they have 8 adopted kids!
Of those adoptions, how many times must the birth parents now be called to cough up child support now that this woman has decided to go on welfare? Why shouldn't they? It's the same premise. the kids need the money. It's their DNA. Pay up.
"

Excellent point. The other kids have birth parents too.

betamax3000 said...

RE: "Would they need to keep the little cap on though?"

If you keep the 'little cap' on you have a better chance of avoiding paternity issues in the first place.

Inga said...

Wouldn't they look silly with those little caps on their heads? Caps off!

Raincoats on.

Strelnikov said...

Anyone who donates sperm over the internet deserves whatever they get.

betamax3000 said...

RE: "Anyone who donates sperm over the internet deserves whatever they get."

Sticky keyboard?

betamax3000 said...

"Amish in bikinis!"

Yep. Ready for another donation.

betamax3000 said...

The Amish CAN wear bikinis, as long as no buttons are involved.

On a side note: never tell an Amish person that their child is "as cute as a button". You might as well tell them the child smells of the devil and rhubarb.

دردشة ومنتديات عراقنا said...

thank you man very nice
شات عراقنا
دردشة عراقنا
جات عراقنا
شلة عراقنا
عراقنا
شات العراق
دردشة عراقية
شات كيكه
دردشة عبدالله
جات
دردشة
منتدى دردشة عراقنا
منتدى عراقنا

betamax3000 said...

If an Amish man is found to have fathered a child through sperm donation he has to build the woman a house, just like in "Witness". He can keep the buggy whip, though.

ambienisevil said...

I saw this elsewhere. The header was misleading in that it suggested the lesbians reneged and went after the guy once they needed cash - which they did not. It's the State that is going after him. The lesbians continue to support his efforts to fight the State.

This is something that intellectually should be alright with me, except the Craigslist part, but when presented with the reality, usually feels wrong. In fact, if she had gone out and just gotten pregnant by some one night stand it would probably feel less strange than having everything be all polite and semi-legal.

It may just be that I regret being forced by the subject matter to consider unattractive people in a sexual light - similar to a post you made a few days or weeks back about some university town types with a polyandry/ open marriage setup.

betamax3000 said...

"It is believed that the clot was caused by Ms. Clinton strenuously attempting a sperm donation for a couple on Craigslist."

Okay, so I had this in a later thread, but it belonged here, too. Home. I tried to wait out this urge but I felt compelled, in a manner verging on OCD -- like the butter knife being out of parallel with the fork and yet not doing anything about it.

betamax3000 said...

Speaking of cutlery:

What did the butter knife say when the spoon told of its trials and tribulations in receiving a sperm donation?

You should've just forked and been done with it.

Poor, poor lesbian spoon.

Alex said...

Just because a man takes money in exchange for sperm does not absolve him of responsibility for the life he is helping to create. Of course he should be on the hook for child support for the rest of his life.

betamax3000 said...

Seriously, I do believe the fork and butter knife must be in parallel. And perpendicular to the edge of the table -- unless it is a round table, in which case the imaginary line* between the fork and butter knife must point directly at the center of the table. By being parallel to this radial line both the fork and butter knife are now pointed slightly off-center, but in equal amounts that balance the two differing directions.

*I imagine this imaginary line to be dashed, and the dashes must be larger than the spaces between the dashes.

cubanbob said...

Do you want other people contracting away YOUR rights?"


That happens to me every April 15th.

betamax3000 said...

Also, the fork and butter knife must not touch. If it is a matter of cramped quarters then something else on the table needs to be removed to allot the proper space (approx. 3/4").

betamax3000 said...

All of this can, of course, be applied to two lesbians lying on a circular bed.

betamax3000 said...

The short-haired one is the fork.

Wally Kalbacken said...

Anyway you look at it that child has at least a 50% chance of being very ugly.

betamax3000 said...

Is there a minimum age for receiving a sperm donation? Or does that even matter?

For instance, if a seventeen-year-old lies about her age and is then inseminated with the sperm of a forty-three-year-old law professor is this now statutory rape or just a Lifetime Movie of the Week?

Note that the age and profession of the sperm donator can vary without changing the underlying legal issues, but in the case of the Lifetime movie it might help snare an actor such as John Stamos, say: he can wear nicely-tailored suits and keep after filming is over.

betamax3000 said...

If a post involving lesbians, sperm and Craigslist cannot reach 200 comments than I have lost my faith in America.

betamax3000 said...

200 posts is hanging there like a pinata, people -- c'mon and swing at it! Swing!

betamax3000 said...

Think of it as a PBS pledge drive, and we just need a few more callers before we return to our very special showing of "The Moody Blues Live from San Quentin"...

betamax3000 said...

Okay, more OCD. I can only enter the house by turning the doorknob clockwise, and I can only leave the house by turning that same knob counter-clockwise. Don't have to think about, it just is.

However, I realize that -- in relation to the door itself -- I am revolving the knob in the same direction -- there is no balancing of the plus and minus. Its like taking two left steps in a row. Very uncomfortable, mentally.

betamax3000 said...

This all brings to mind the old SNL Jeopardy skit where Sean Connery chooses the category "The Penis Mightier".

betamax3000 said...

When I wrote at 12:18 "I'm going to get this thread to 200 if I have to do it myself" I kinda thought it would've been easier.

betamax3000 said...

When talking about artificial insemination am I the only one who thinks: "Princess Diana"?

betamax3000 said...

In the film American Graffiti which of the following actors would've been most likely to be a sperm donor?

1. Ron Howard (Steve)
2. Paul LeMat (John)
3. Charles Martin Smith (Toad)
4. Harrison Ford (Bob Falfa)
5. Richard Dreyfuss (Curt)
6. Wolfman Jack (Wolfman Jack)

In the same film, which of the following actresses would've been most likely to be a lesbian awaiting artificial insemination:

1. Cindy Williams ('girlfriend')

RonF said...

No man - or woman - should be able to sign away responsibilities for any child conceived from their sperm or egg.

Period.

Would this shut down sperm banks (except for men who want to save their own sperm)? Probably. Would this cause childless single people and couples - whether homosexual or heterosexual - to have to take into account the possibility of the sperm or egg donor to be either voluntarily or involuntarily a part of their child's lives, to the possible inhibition of making that choice? Probably.

I have no problem with any of that.

Gene said...

I saw this elsewhere. The header was misleading in that it suggested the lesbians reneged and went after the guy once they needed cash - which they did not. It's the State that is going after him. The lesbians continue to support his efforts to fight the State.

If the lesbian parents really support this guy they should reimburse him for every dollar the state makes him pay. If they don't have the money (and apparently one of them does not), they should stage a fundraiser among lesbian mother groups. If nothing else, they should contact a legislator sympathetic to gay-lesbian-transsexual issues and get a bill introduced to legalize this practice.

I Callahan said...

I have no problem with any of that.

Why wouldn't you? I mean, to what end are your views headed?

I can't see anything positive coming out of suing sperm donors. None.

I Callahan said...

Just because a man takes money in exchange for sperm does not absolve him of responsibility for the life he is helping to create. Of course he should be on the hook for child support for the rest of his life.

Once again: why? I don't understand this thinking at all. What possible good is coming of any of this?

betamax3000 said...

RE: "they should stage a fundraiser among lesbian mother groups"

David Crosby would hang loose backstage, no doubt. Just to help out if anyone, umm, needed 'help'.

To paraphrase Woodstock:
"...to get back to the warning that I received. You may take it with however many grains of salt that you wish. That the brown David Crosby sperm that is circulating around us isn't too good. It is suggested that you stay away from that. Of course it's your own trip. So be my guest, but please be advised that there is a warning on that one, ok?"

Laura said...

Lesbians must be more careful on their pre-nups; depending on state law, the un-inseminated could sue for virtual adultery. Talk about sticky legal ramifications, unless there is a direct path to the turkey baster...

Laura said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul said...

Why in the hell was he a sperm donor?

I say go to hell, close down all the donor companies. If the lesban can't fuck men, well that's their problem.

betamax3000 said...

If God had wanted lesbians to have babies he would've given half of them penises.

Or made their tongues ejaculate.

There would've been options is what I'm saying.

betamax3000 said...

If a man donated one of his healthy testicles to a man who had none* solely so that the man could artificially inseminate a woman, how far back do the ensuing responsibilities go? How far do we want to reach up the pants-leg of Justice?

(*tragic tractor accident perhaps**)

(**getting ready to start the book about David Foster Wallace's road trip with a friend -- my brain is already adjusting to footnotes)

jr565 said...

Here's the pro choice argument in a nutshell spoken by a woman.
"I don't care if you want to be dad. It's my uterus and you just deposited some sperm. Therefore you have no say if I destroy our fetus, based on my choice."
AND
"I don't care if you DON'T want to be a dad and just deposited some sperm. Because you did and I decided not to kill it even though I knew that you didn't want it when I made that decision, I'm going to make you pay for 20 years".
A womans womb gives her an awful lot of power. Power over life and death and servitude of people whether they are in her womb or outside of it.

jr565 said...

essentialy a woman has control over her sexual reproduction and a man's sexual reproduction. And a man has no say whatsoever over either.
A woman can choose not to be a mother, even if it means that a father cant' be a father. but if a woman chooses to be a mother she can force a man to be a father.

Simply because she has a uterus.
How is that fair?

Why is their a stigma attached to a dead beat dad who doesn't want to pay for a kid, but not a woman who kills her baby because she simply doesn't want to be a mother or due to some supposed future financial hardship.

Why can't a man argue that he doesn't want to be a dad because of some financial hardship on his end? Why MUST he be a dad or pay as if he was a dad? A woman can choose to be a mother, but why must a man choose to be a father simply because a woman makes a bad choice? She could have chosen not to carry the baby to term knowing that there wouldn't be a father there or kept it. Just because he's a cad it doesn't violate her freedoms. But if she's a cad, it does violate his.


jr565 said...

I'm personally anti abortion, but if we're going to have it as a right, then women have to accept that with their choice comes the concept of personal responsibility.
Your right to abort a baby should end at my right to not have to pay for your mistake. It would be OUR mistake, except you've already told me that I have no say because you have a uterus.If I don't have a say, then why would you say I'm RESPONSIBLE for raising a kid that YOU brougth into the world based on your choice and not mine?

If some parasite is jettisoned from your vagina because you chose to not kill it,don't expect payment from the "sperm donor" who had no say in whether to keep the baby or not simply because you want to be a mom.

betamax3000 said...

RE: "some parasite is jettisoned from your vagina"

Did Sigourney Weaver star in that?

betamax3000 said...

Occupy Uterine-Wall Street.

betamax3000 said...

200. Phew. Need a cigarette.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 220   Newer› Newest»