It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Sperm Donor Ordered to Pay Child Support for 18-Year-Old

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 12:00 PM
He participated in forcing 'life' on that child.

He chose to make that child a link in his family tree.

He acknowledged parenthood within the child's birth certificate.

He knew that child would carry his own and his ancestor's DNA into the future.

He was aware that child would be an extension of himself.

And to give him credit, he felt a connection to the child, to the extent he wished the child to regard him as 'Dad'.

Perhaps he was aware the child might take comfort from and be reassured to know that out there somewhere, he had a father, just like other kids. Perhaps once the child was born, the biological father began to appreciate the enormity of what he'd been party to. So he didn't walk away from or close the door on his child.

Perhaps the biological father was torn between feelings of obligation and connectedness re: his child ... and an equal sense of obligation to his child's lesbian parents.

Whatever the case, he is the child's biological father and when the publicity has ceased, he may regard it as a blessing that he can, belatedly, contribute to his child's future.

It's the child who's been done a disservice here. He had a right to know his biological father. He may feel he had a right to be raised by his biological father. Confronting that 18 year old right now are three adults who, between them, undertook to play god. They regarded him as an object. They continue to do so.

At no time, obviously, did those three adults take the child's rights into consideration. Nope. Two lesbians wanted to play at happy families. Rather than get a dog, they decided their lives ... THEIR lives .. would be fulfilled, enriched, by the addition of a child.

And the biological father had sperm to burn so tossed a bit in the lesbians' direction: ' There you go, girls ... here's what you need for that kid you want. Have fun. Be happy.'

The three adults simply assumed the child would be happy being raised in a lesbian household. The child had no say in this decision. The adults assumed the child would happily accept -- as an adult -- that he was the product of an arrangement between some guy and one of his lesbian parents.

Did any of the adults consider the child may wish to meet his biological father .... or did those adults decide the child had no right to this ?

Did they consider the impact their decisions would have upon the child at various stages in his life ? Did they consider that the child would undoubtedly stare at his reflection in the bathroom mirror and wonder where his colouring and physique and idosyncrasies derived ? Did they consider he would wonder if his father was good or poor at particular sports ? Did they consider that as that child grew towards manhood, he would very probably seek to identify with his biological father? Did the lesbians decide they were good 'father' role-models for a developing man? Or did they tell themselves he'd happily identify with menstruation and menapause and breasts and hot-flashes ?

Now or in ten or twenty years time, the child ..the product of an 'arrangement' ... will judge those three people who took it upon themselves to regard him as an object.

What could he feel for his lesbian parents, other than scorn ? They failed even to honour the arrangement which brought him into being. They humiliated and exposed him before the world, revealed him as an 'object' in order to chase money and hold his biological father to ransom. They betrayed their claimed ideals. They failed to protect him from public scrutiny. How could he respect them after all they've done to him and all they denied him throughout his childhood ?

And what will be his feelings towards his biological father .. someone who reduced him in value to a few drops of semen .. someone who 'gave him away' and then went on to sire other children who'd been provided everything that was denied himself ?

Damn the biological father and the lesbians ! Damn their ego and pride and arrogance !

[edit on 5-12-2007 by Dock6]

posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 03:01 PM
im gay and have considered donor insemination .its sad that this guy has been screwed over like this when he was just tryin to help

posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 08:23 PM
reply to post by traderonwallst

Amazing story. I have heard even worse stories, where a woman put a mans name on a birth certificate regardless of if he was involved or not. 18 years later, the states knocking on his door for repayment of financial and scholarship aid, roughly $56,000.00 = interest. Though he didn't know the woman, had not had anything to do with her, the fact remained that his name had been on his birth certificate for years, and as a result, was considered the legal father of the child. Though DNA cleared him, it wasn't until after the results that accounts were unfrozen and life returned to normal.

posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 08:39 PM
reply to post by Dock6

That is a very interesting take, and one that I had not considered. Would the situation have been different if there had been an anonymous donor, with frozen sperm from a sperm bank that protects its records?? Would you damn anyone who provided sperm to a bank, with the sole intention of it being used to procreate?
There are many common reasons that ordinary couples can't have children. My wife and I had an issue trying to have our first, due to "plumbing"issues. When our first was born, this problem corrected itself, and we had our second with no difficulty. (easy for me to say
When we had our first, we used invitro, and as a result, had four embryo's that we had banked for later, due to the issues having our first. When we had our second, we signed paperwork that allowed the clinic to give these embryos to an infertile couple. We did this, because we felt that people who want to have children, who have the ability to take care of them, and the need for them, should be able to have them. While I know that it is my wife and my DNA, the woman that carries this embryos to term would be its legal and biological mother.
I don't feel that we did this as a frivilous action, we did it as an act of compassion. We understood what it was like not to be able to have a child.
I assume the doctor who donated his sperm felt the same way, that these two women, regardless of they're sexual preference, were a loving couple and wanted to have a child. With one being a resident, I would assume that she was responsible as well as intelligent. In this case, intelligent enough to use the law to screw someone who helped her. I don't believe that he is at fault in any way, It is more an issue with the legal system and the acts of a shallow, ungrateful woman. Thats just me though.

posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 02:51 AM

Originally posted by riley
reply to post by traderonwallst

The father broke the 'oral agreement' and started sending the kid prezzies with "from dad" so obviously he's had more emotional investment than the official heavily biased atypical of fox media story lets on. imo there's alot more behind this.. say.. a respectable upstanding married doctor has a fling with a bisexual co-worker and they call the resulting pregnancy 'donated' as to not damage reputations and piss his wife off. The 'lesbian' sueing for child support? sounds like the actions of a scorned ex. What kind of married man donates sperm to a co-worker just to be nice? yeah right.. I doubt there were test tubes involved in that conception.

[edit on 3-12-2007 by riley]

From my understanding the sperm was donated on the condition that the donor would be involved with the child. So no agreement was broken. And there are hundreds if not thousands of cases where friends have donated sperm to help another couple have a child. I am sure this decision was
made after careful consideration.

I agree though, there is information being held back. After all the child is 18 and legally an adult. He is not entitled to ANY child support.

posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 08:30 AM
First off....not from some parallel universe. Only you are allowed to speculate? Obviously if he "donated" sperm she took it to a lab or he did it a lab. No mention of using a turkey baster in the article AND no mention of consensual sex, although you seem to believe that must be the way they did it.

LABS don't make mistakes????? Labs make mistake all the time.

The man would be a fool not to demand a DNA test. The court is irresponsible for not requiring one. I find you way of thinking completelone sided and quite short sided at that.

posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Clear Thinker
From my understanding the sperm was donated on the condition that the donor would be involved with the child. So no agreement was broken.

Then that would make him a dad.. not a donar.

And there are hundreds if not thousands of cases where friends have donated sperm to help another couple have a child. I am sure this decision was
made after careful consideration.

You're sure? Why didn't he draw up a contract then or use a fertility lab like all the other sperm donars? Why would he question the dna but request his name be on the BC? Not the innocent actions of your typical sperm donar trying to help a couple.

I agree though, there is information being held back.

Thats why I'm undecided. for the record if it was a legit sperm donar I would be disgusted at him being sued.. but it seems like he was alternating between being a 'dad' and being a 'donar' at his own convenience. Can't keep picking and choosing which role you want to play.

After all the child is 18 and legally an adult. He is not entitled to ANY child support.

I don't know whats gone on in this case so am undecided as the 'why' they want money has not been explained. I still think dead beat dads [and mums] under normal circumstances should pay backpay.. but I also think the paternity laws need to be fairer.

posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 03:47 PM
No good deed goes unpunished.
Women should be entirely financially responsible for any child they bring into the world unless the infant was conceived during a legal marriage with the biological father. Period.
No man should be obligated to pay any financial recompense for a child nor have the right of visitation, etc unless he was the conceptual father while legally married to the biological mother. Period.

posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 09:42 PM
So Mom and Mama's incomes were not enough? Doesn't this whole precedent set homosexual partners who want to have a child back years? There are still people who believe that homosexuals have no business having/raising children together. (I am NOT one of these aforementioned bigots, btw...)

This has been a hard fought battle to get legislative support on this issue. and whether we like it or not, homosexual lifestyles, are still an easy target. These ladies have done the gay parenting community no favors with this stunt.

Fathering a child is a huge responsibility, but where do these ladies get the idea that they can scratch after him for money?? This is a horrible, stinking, rotten ruling that hurts the "infertile" industry, will set homosexual parenting households back legally and will have adverse (even more adverse than they are now) ramifications upon adoptive households who welcome the birth-parents into their home and heart while raising the child who is innocent in all the events.

Despicable Mom and Mommie!! They give responsible women a bad name
Reprehensible Judge!!
Doctor dad: Bad, stinking, rotten deal.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 02:15 AM

Originally posted by humanunnaki
No good deed goes unpunished.
Women should be entirely financially responsible for any child they bring into the world unless the infant was conceived during a legal marriage with the biological father. Period.

In that case ALL unmarried men /teenage boys should have the vacectomies lest they sire children they aren't willing to financially support.

..are you against women having abortions while being against welfare for single mothers? same kind of rationale..

[edit on 7-12-2007 by riley]

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 07:58 AM
It would have been in hindsight, far cheaper for him to get off with a prostitute than get paid for masturbating.

now c'mon! that is really all its about?

Donors don't care really about anything other than getting paid to be a masturbator.

that is my .02c on it, anyway...

I say, serves him right for being a w**ker!


posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 08:01 AM
oh and the other thing that comes to mind for me is :

if you can't make it happen by yourself, then accept it!

If there are lesbians or homosexuals out there wanting kids, tough shiiat... get a man with a penis or a woman with a womb...thats right, have sex not to get your jollies but to actually reproduce.

Why defy nature?

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 02:29 PM
reply to post by traderonwallst

shes right, thats #ing retarded

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in