... teasing this item (on a subject we've already talked about extensively).
२ जानेवारी, २०१३
State grabs man's nuts...
... or something. From the front page of the NY Post:
... teasing this item (on a subject we've already talked about extensively).
... teasing this item (on a subject we've already talked about extensively).
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४९ टिप्पण्या:
If Kansas wants to run their state like this, and be subject to ridicule, more power to them.
Not as memorable a headline as Headless body found in Topless bar.
Moral of the story, don't Fu*k with lesbians, even as a sperm donar.
They're only being persecuted because they're lesbians. Well it looks like at least one of them still is.
If The biological mother had been at the time of insemination heterosexual she could easily claim multiple partners, and one night stands, therefore shielding the supposed father from identification.
But the only way a lesbian could become pregnant would be as the result of a concerted effort. Therefore the state knows the father is identifiable. He should have seen this coming.
Just as long as they don't grab his cock and pullet.
I'm utterly confused as to why this is a controversy in the first place.
Call me crazy, but I think a really simple rule could and should resolve any dispute like this.
If a child is born, by default the biological parents are legally the child's parents.
Either parent can remove their parental responsibility through a formal process, applicable for some period of time before or after the child's birth (or notice therof).
If both parents do this, the child becomes a ward of the state and can be adopted.
In the case of sperm donation agreements, the donor just needs to follow this process and he's off the hook.
I mean, this isn't rocket science.
No good deed goes unpunished. Lesbian love lasts long...not.
Masturbation has consequences, this is well established.
He could have tried the "look no hair in my palms" defense. Fool.
"There a sucker born every minute and 9 out of 10 of 'em live." P.T. Barnum
In other news, the divorce of Thomas Beatie and her wife is currently held up in Arizona. Thomas has had a double mastectomy and takes male hormones, but has never had her female genitals removed, and has given birth to three children.
She lied on her marriage documents in Hawaii, to say that she was a man, when she married her wife. Now the judge in Arizona is holding things up, since same-sex marriage is illegal in Arizona, and is wondering whether they were ever legally married, since the marriage was conducted under fraudulent circumstances.
Interesting case. Apparently Thomas is accusing her wife of attacking her. Since the wife has no biological connection to the children, it will be interesting to see who gets custody, and/or whether any of the fathers will be involved.
If Kansas wants to run their state like this, and be subject to ridicule, more power to them.
The State of Kansas seems to be the only ones acting responsibly in this whole sordid mess.
If it weren't for Kansas, we wouldn't have The Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster.
You keep rockin' corn people!
As a Kansas taxpayer, and thus responsible for the spawn of the two women, I reject the proposition that the sperm donor can escape his responsibility to support his child except by going through legal channels.
MADISONMAN, what, specifically, is Kansas doing that is subjecting the my state to ridicule?
As a Kansas taxpayer, and thus responsible for the spawn of the two women, I reject the proposition that the sperm donor can escape his responsibility to support his child except by going through legal channels
Just because it was his sperm, it doesn't make it his child. The two women signed up to be the child's parents; that should be the end of it.
This happens all the time with hetero (normal) parents too. MikeDC's post is a great example of how it should be.
The imagery connected to this issue is very disturbing to me.
The photos of the two Lapband Lesbians are disruptive to my normally rewarding Lipstick Lesbian fantasies.
But the Neruish collar with vest fashion statement by the alleged male parental unit gives me a bad, bad case of the heebie-jeebies.
I'm thankful that there are no photos of the children.
But the Neruish collar with vest fashion statement by the alleged male parental unit gives me a bad, bad case of the heebie-jeebies.
It was the same for me until I started thinking of him as a hobbit.
Orchid should be the the state flower of Kansas.
MikeDC's post is a great example of how it should be.
You mean the post whereby anyone who makes a baby can decide to just walk away from their responsibilities and make the child a ward of the State?
No thanks, I’m with the State of Kansas on this one.
I just wish they – or whichever State(s) was/were involved at the time – had been more on the ball before when this “mother” was apparently allowed to adopt multiple children.
Yes, Thorley. And the biological father should be responsible for his spawn even if the spawn had been legally adopted by others. Ad infinitum
It's only right. A man's responsibility and all that. It's the manly thing to do. His sperm, his money.
Except in the case of cuckholds. Then the cuckholded husband is on the hook. I mean, really.
You mean the post whereby anyone who makes a baby can decide to just walk away from their responsibilities and make the child a ward of the State?
Could you please explain to me how it isn't already this way? How do you explain 50% illegitimacy rates in the country, and over 90% in the inner cities?
Thorley - I asked people in the prior thread about this, and no one answered; your responses are always very reasonable.
Question: What is the long-term good of having such a policy? To what end are we going? And where do you draw the line?
The law is COMPLETELY stacked against men; if it were the woman, and she aborted, it wouldn't have even hit the news. I believe it's time for some balance in the law on family issues.
"No thanks, I’m with the State of Kansas on this one."
Be careful. Next time it might be you. That girl you picked up at the bar might keep a sample of your seed and make you an unwilling source of state-sanctioned transfer payments.
You mean the post whereby anyone who makes a baby can decide to just walk away from their responsibilities and make the child a ward of the State?
Yes. As others have pointed out, this is what it means to give a baby up for adoption. Are you against adoption?
Gotta love the NY Post headlines.
One of my favorites was, regarding Anthony Weiner's problems, "Erections Have Consequences."
Rikery they do
I Callahan wrote:
You mean the post whereby anyone who makes a baby can decide to just walk away from their responsibilities and make the child a ward of the State?
What about safe haven laws? I think they are in nearly all the states at this point.
I'm not against adoption. Not even against lesbians adopting. Not even against lebians adopting children of men they meet via a craigslist ad. But no one adopted this child. Adoption involves a court, a judge, all that...not just a paper version of a pinkie swear, which is what the lesbians and mr craigslist had.
Speaking of erections having consequences, MikeDC. It's thinking like Thorley's and these deadbeat lesbians' that is a contributing factor to our declining fertility rates. You've got to be a moron or criminally negligent to have a child in America today -- well, either that or 100% judgment proof (say, like a young man born in the inner city, and for that surfeit of unborn black babies the Supreme Court has given us Roe v. Wade).
Adoption involves a court, a judge, all that...not just a paper version of a pinkie swear, which is what the lesbians and mr craigslist had.
Implied contracts are enforced in court all of the time. Business Law 101.
jr565,
Not sure if you're responding to me (It was Thorley's comment you pasted).
Yes, there are safe haven laws. Excellent point. And only girls/women can take advantage of those laws also.
Another inherently unfair imbalance.
"Yes, there are safe haven laws. Excellent point. And only girls/women can take advantage of those laws also.
"Another inherently unfair imbalance." -- I Callahan
An unfair imbalance soon to be perfected by the state's use of DNA testing, I am sure. They will be able to track down all the dads! I mean, "deadbeat dads."
No more wards of the state, Thorley!
Did the baby, or someone representing only her interests, sign the contract? Besides that, child support js not handled in business law---family court does not recognize these sorts of contracts and they shouldn't.
Yes, you are right acm. The state knows best.
Since the state is paying the bill, they ought to.
Look, if this guy wanted to be a sperm donor, there's a way to do that which protects the kid (by screening recipients and donors) and protects the donor from being pursued fof child support. All three adults chose craigslist instead. I have loads of sympathy cof the baby, here, buf none for the adults.
I remember when a divorce* judge told me that the state of New York holds the child's interests paramount.
"Well, your honor, then why does the state allow no fault divorce?"
"Shut up."
________
*Ironically, they call divorce court "Matrimonial Court." I asked the security guard if anyone get married there. Ha ha. I think he heard that one before.
"... if this guy wanted to be a sperm donor, there's a way to do that which protects the kid (by screening recipients and donors"
Very droll, acm. Very droll. The only foolproof screening in your world is self-castration.
I once represented a client who was getting divorced, who had only scant partial custody, who insisted that I draft a PSA binding him to pay for his children's college education.
That was very different from the substantial minority of divorcing men who wanted to pay no child support at all, or to pay as little as possible, because they figured the money was going straight to the mother and she wasn't putting out for him anymore so too bad for the kids.
This is why KS cheered when Sibelius was nominated for HHS Witch.
Oh, I get it now. You're a nut.
No, clinic screenings aren't foolproof. Neither are adoption agency screenings. But they're better than craigslist, and the state---which, again is paying for these idiots' baby---has to draw the line somewhere.
If a woman had simply handed her newborn over to a couple she met online, without having her relationship to tbe baby legally severed, I'd want her to pay the state back, too (if the baby ended up on welfare).
Yes, the state does the wrong thing for kids in other cases, like no fault divorce, rewarding paternity fraud, etc. But they're right, here.
No, clinic screenings aren't foolproof. Neither are adoption agency screenings. But they're better than craigslist, and the state---which, again is paying for these idiots' baby---has to draw the line somewhere.
OK, that's reasonable. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's reasonable.
Yes, the state does the wrong thing for kids in other cases, like no fault divorce, rewarding paternity fraud, etc. But they're right, here.
This is where we part company. Why are they "right" here, other than that's the way the law is written? Because in this case, the law is an ass.
From a moral standpoint, 3 adults entered into a contract, a contract the state of Kansas had no standing, in my non-lawyer opinion. All three knew what they were doing.
One person changes her mind, the state steps in, and rewrites the contract completely. And the guy with the least power in the contract is the one the most raked-over.
There's nothing right about this case, unless you're only talking about the legal aspects. I'm talking about the moral aspects of the case.
They are right here, imho, because it is immoral for these three adults to have made a baby and then not supported it. It was immoral for the man to not do the sort of screening---how much money do you have set aside for an emergency? How many othdr kids do you have? --- that a clinic or an adoption agency would have done before he gave them a baby. It's just flat wrong to make a baby and not either support that mid yourself or make reasonably sure that he or she will be supported by someone else. He didn't make a reasonable effort to see that the lesbians could handle the kid, and he didn't get the court to do it for him. Just like, again, a woman who just hands her baby over to any old stranger in an illegal adoption.
I will say the state is immoral in not pursuing lesbian #2 for something. And for allowing lesbian #1 to adopt 8 kids as a "single" mom. But the dude definitely participated in adding another kid to this trainwreck. Maybe we should find a good way to punish all three adults, and take all 9 kids to Disney World.
Oh and none of the adults changed their minds. They all three want the donor left alone. But they also would like the state (which promised nothing in this contract) to continue supporting the baby, please. And people who care about the baby (another person who promised nothing, had no opportunity to approve the contract) would like her to be cared for financially, which is her right.
And the person with the least power in this case is the BABY not the sperm donor.
Typing on the phone sucks...shutting up for now.
In a reported NJ case, a trial court denied the right of parents to terminate the father's legal relationship with the child based on a consent order, when the woman was inseminated by (allegedly) a turkey baster . www.lsnj.org/NewsAnnouncements/EEvOMGR.pdf
If you don't follow the statutory means of releasing your parental right/obligation, it's difficult for the court to impose its own standard, particularly when the legislature has let its will be known.
"'I'm thankful that there are no photos of the children."
Patience. They will come.
This is what happens when you don't donate your sperm to a woman in the traditional way.
Big Mike ..... some would say the preferred way.
The moral of the story is don't be kind to lesbians who want to have kids.
Fannie Mae and Mac: Barney Frank screwed up sperm banks, too. Regardless of your capacity to pay the requisite loan it is NOT all-you-can-drink.
That's Ladies Night.
MikeDC: "I mean, this isn't rocket science."
No, it's feminism, which is the opposite of rocket science.
The working premise here is that women get choices and men get responsibilities.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा