Sperm donor must pay out for daughters he barely knows

reply to post by fallow the light


Dear fallow the light,

The lesbian couple could not have children. They wanted one and he agreed to give them one. The child belongs to the lesbian couple, not the sperm donor.

I like this, he agreed to give them a person, what is that? Is that slavery? He did not give a child, he made a child and he knew he would, he just did not want to take any responsibility for it. How is that honorable or generous?

reply to post by AQuestion


not that its here not there but i am pro choice not my body not my say

he explicitly said he wanted no part in raising the child and never said he would provide financially for it and the women accepted this by agreeing to raise the child.Why is it the mans fault for her marriage collapsing why should he face financial hardships for a child she brought into the world knowing it would not have financial support from the father? why is it always the big bad mans fault if she didn't want a kid she didn't have to put his sperm in her,she knew the terms her relationship collapsed and now shes trying to screw over some one who was nice to her.

why do you think the female that left her and her baby alone bears no responsibility because she dosen't have a penis shes magically immune to being responsible? if these kind of cases take off gay people and those who can not have children of their own and while there is adoption perhaps these women wanted to experience the miracle of birth as opposed to adoptions(a homosexual couple would still not have this option)

why do you seem so hell bent on making a homosexual man pay for a lesbian couples baby?

Originally posted by fallow the light

The child belongs to the lesbian couple, not the sperm donor.

The sperm donor would not have had the child if the lesbian couple would have never have asked for it.

That is a very good point.

Do people who think the sperm donor has a legal responsibility to support the child also agree that he has a right to fight for custody of the child?

By the same logic, the lesbian partner who has since left the biological mother and apparently has no legal obligation to support the child should consequently have no right to fight for custody?

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas


Dear RalagaNarHallas,

Yes, he said one thing and did another. I am not surprised that you believe in abortion, I anticipated that you would. He said that he did not want to be responsible for children and then participated in having them. What am I missing? I bet you also believe the world is overpopulated and then you applaud him and hold him not accountable for more people on this earth. If you believe the world is overpopulated say so, if you think there are not enough people than say that. Be honest.

reply to post by AQuestion


because with out them the mother would have no child and still have a failed relationship(and have to find another way to make money),perhaps she should have made a better choice then getting with a dead beat mom who would leave her to raise a child on her own and not consider the wishes of the child THEY(lesbian couple) chose to bring into the world why didnt they just adopt?or upon realizing that she could not care for the child why not keep its best interests in mind and put it up for adoption

im adopted and i hit the frigging lottery i went from 16 year old meth head prostitute (she tried to abort me her self with heroine and meth)because dead beat daddy a 46 year old illegal immigrant decided he could just go pluck another strawberry(person who whores them selves out for drugs).i went from that to head nurse of kaiser(mother) and the man who ran the most successful non profit in Californians history(father) so i think adoption might be good for the child as the mother is unable or unwilling to care for her own offspring and who knows perhaps the kid will get parents that actually care this time

reply to post by alfa1


Someone has to support the child. The man paid until he lost his job. By paying he was preventing the biological father from paying.

It's really a simple concept. And I take no sides, but the theory is; a child must be cared for, the non-biological father was paying preventing bio parent from doing so, non-bio parent had recourse (DNA test) to stop paying, in which the biological father would be forced to pay.

It's really a simple concept, of which the ethics of it all can sometimes be skewed by looking back in time. But at the time the kid needed to be cared for, and that's what happened.

We can argue about the paternal society, but not this, you're wrong.

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by AQuestion

 

because with out them the mother would have no child and still have a failed relationship(and have to find another way to make money),perhaps she should have made a better choice then getting with a dead beat mom who would leave her to raise a child on her own and not consider the wishes of the child THEY(lesbian couple) chose to bring into the world why didnt they just adopt?or upon realizing that she could not care for the child why not keep its best interests in mind and put it up for adoption

im adopted and i hit the frigging lottery i went from 16 year old meth head prostitute (she tried to abort me her self with heroine and meth)because dead beat daddy a 46 year old illegal immigrant decided he could just go pluck another strawberry(person who whores them selves out for drugs).i went from that to head nurse of kaiser(mother) and the man who ran the most successful non profit in Californians history(father) so i think adoption might be good for the child as the mother is unable or unwilling to care for her own offspring and who knows perhaps the kid will get parents that actually care this time

And if he had not been a sperm donor, child creator, then none of this would be an issue.

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas

he explicitly said he wanted no part in raising the child and never said he would provide financially for it and the women accepted this by agreeing to raise the child.Why is it the mans fault for her marriage collapsing why should he face financial hardships for a child she brought into the world knowing it would not have financial support from the father?

To be fair, the one party who is entirely innocent in all of this is the child.

The child's rights must be protected and it could be argued that the biological father cannot dispense with his legal and moral obligations merely by getting the lesbian partner of the biological mother to agree to assume his responsibilities.

By way of analogy, I cannot get rid of my legal obligation to make automobile payments by getting my friend to agree to pay for my car's lease payments. Only the leasing company can agree to such a change.

reply to post by AQuestion


Now you are just playing off as crazy.

The couple COULD NOT have a child. Are you saying that adoption is slavery?

He agreed to give the 2 women a child since they could not have one. He would not have given them that child if he had to take responsibility for it. The child was not for him to raise, it was for the lesbian couple.

If the couple would not have wanted one and asked him, he would have never had a child.

Sounds to me that you just want to blame the man and will think of any ignorant statement to make it so.

Tell me, did the lesbian partner not have any responsibility for bringing the child into the world?
If the partner would have never agreed, then it would have never happened.

reply to post by AQuestion


well you sure seem to like speaking for me,like it or not abortion is legal so your just gonna have to make peace with that.i dont know what male hurt you in your life but you seem to have a chip on your shoulder that clouds your vision and gives you great anger id advise trying to find a way to deal with that before your anger consumes you.

as to the world being overpopulated im not one of those people that believes in agenda 42 or what ever that stuff is but we do have a good deal of people on our little blue rock but i don't think we need to start culling the heard as you seem to think of it....

i don't hold him accountable because it was a legal arrangement not him sleeping with her not him telling her baby your the only one for me and then disappearing as soon as she got fat or got distracted with another female he was a homosexual man who probably felt a loyalty to the lesbian couple as some kind of kindred spirits and assumed he could trust "his own kind"(hate phrasing it that way) and then got screwed over when the girls relationship failed and she didn't plan well enough for that eventuality
as to your participation comment i consider participation to be vaginal intercourse...baring that have him at least have stated an interest in raising the child the woman knew he didn't want to be a part of the child's life and is now trying to screw him over for money and greed even though she knew he was never intending to be in the child life financially why is she not liable for bringing a kid into the world SHE couldn't support(adoption remember?)

let me guess your one of those people that wants rape victims to have to raise the children of their rapists and that little girls should be forced to have the children of their molester uncle because some musty old book tells you abortion is wrong and a sin....if im wrong about the bible part i apologize but im thinking your just going for a walk before going back to sleep under your bridge for the night

you wanan get outraged about a dead beat horrible dad here read this www.nypost.com... one of the more rediculous things ive heard making a rape victim pay her rapist child support.....with cases like this tell me the child support system dosent need a complete rehash?

reply to post by ollncasino


I think the lesbian partner should have right to custody. She was the other parent. She did help raise the child.

The sperm donor however should not.

She should also be obligated to pay child support. She was the other parent. I'm sure the child thinks of her as it's mother or father. The child would have never have happened if it weren't for her.

reply to post by ollncasino


always appreciate a thought out reply and a good case of the devils advocate (love the avatar by the way) i think the mans only mistake was not getting it in writing that he would not be held liable (treat it like a business contract) but from what everything ive seen online it seems the safest from a legal stand point on donating sperm is to do it anonymously or not at all as that is the only way to prevent your self from legal action

Originally posted by fallow the light
reply to post by AQuestion

 

Now you are just playing off as crazy.

The couple COULD NOT have a child. Are you saying that adoption is slavery?

He agreed to give the 2 women a child since they could not have one. He would not have given them that child if he had to take responsibility for it. The child was not for him to raise, it was for the lesbian couple.

If the couple would not have wanted one and asked him, he would have never had a child.

Sounds to me that you just want to blame the man and will think of any ignorant statement to make it so.

Tell me, did the lesbian partner not have any responsibility for bringing the child into the world?
If the partner would have never agreed, then it would have never happened.

Dear fallow the light,

You have caught me, I am completely insane for thinking people should be responsible for their actions. How crazy is that? You said the was generous by giving them a person, how is that not slavery? You say he only did it because they asked him to, was he just following orders like the Nazis? I already said that I thought the partner should have been responsible; but, not legally, morally, there is a difference. He chose to have a child, he chose to put the welfare of his child in the hands of others because he did not have to take any responsibility for the child. A great person to be sure or a selfish person, who didn't care about the life of his own child.

reply to post by AQuestion

And if he had not been a sperm donor, child creator, then none of this would be an issue.

So I guess it's all his fault.....

reply to post by AQuestion


lol You have proven my point on

Sounds to me that you just want to blame the man and will think of any ignorant statement to make it so.

You said the was generous by giving them a person, how is that not slavery? You say he only did it because they asked him to, was he just following orders like the Nazis?

It's not as if he gave them the child to do hard labor for them or plow their fields. It was because they could not have one themselves and they wanted one to love and care for.

It's not HIS child it's the lesbian couples child.

reply to post by AQuestion


ah the easiest way to find out some ones argument is not working they drop the "your like the nazi's"line
(looks around for goose stepping but sees none)

why do you think that the women in this case should bear no financial burden? you feel like enlightening us to what happened to you to make you hate men so much so we could at least try to find out from a psychological stand point why you feel the way you do and have such a strong conviction on this issue

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by AQuestion

 

well you sure seem to like speaking for me,like it or not abortion is legal so your just gonna have to make peace with that.i dont know what male hurt you in your life but you seem to have a chip on your shoulder that clouds your vision and gives you great anger id advise trying to find a way to deal with that before your anger consumes you.

as to the world being overpopulated im not one of those people that believes in agenda 42 or what ever that stuff is but we do have a good deal of people on our little blue rock but i don't think we need to start culling the heard as you seem to think of it....

i don't hold him accountable because it was a legal arrangement not him sleeping with her not him telling her baby your the only one for me and then disappearing as soon as she got fat or got distracted with another female he was a homosexual man who probably felt a loyalty to the lesbian couple as some kind of kindred spirits and assumed he could trust "his own kind"(hate phrasing it that way) and then got screwed over when the girls relationship failed and she didn't plan well enough for that eventuality
as to your participation comment i consider participation to be vaginal intercourse...baring that have him at least have stated an interest in raising the child the woman knew he didn't want to be a part of the child's life and is now trying to screw him over for money and greed even though she knew he was never intending to be in the child life financially why is she not liable for bringing a kid into the world SHE couldn't support(adoption remember?)

let me guess your one of those people that wants rape victims to have to raise the children of their rapists and that little girls should be forced to have the children of their molester uncle because some musty old book tells you abortion is wrong and a sin....if im wrong about the bible part i apologize but im thinking your just going for a walk before going back to sleep under your bridge for the night

Dear RalagaNarHallas,

I love your answer, it shows your irrationality better than I ever could, it shows your anger and bias. I have plenty of threads and posts, people know my position. To accuse me of believing that the state should regulate what women do with their body is purely ridiculous and I have said I believe outlawing abortion is slavery, genius. People can read your words and my prior words, I have been here for more than a hot minute. Let others examine your words and your hatred because I said that people should be responsible for their actions.Y

You attempt to avoid questions because you are afraid of being called on your answers, you mention Agenda 42 and claim to not understand it. How funny, you doubled Agenda 21, you know what it is or you do not. Then you say how the world does have too many people. I cannot expect a straight answer from you because you believe deceit is your best weapon. Have fun with that.

I also like your description of why he should be responsible, you believe he should not be responsible because it was some sort of immaculate conception, He gave his sperm; but, did not have sex and therefore you believe he is not responsible for his actions. Sort of the opposite of the Jesus story.

Originally posted by fallow the light
reply to post by AQuestion

 

And if he had not been a sperm donor, child creator, then none of this would be an issue.

So I guess it's all his fault.....

Dear fallow the light,

Read my words again, ALL? That shows an inability to understand me or anyone else. I hold all the parties involved accountable. The child is not, they did not create themselves, they are accountable for their actions based on their understanding as they grow. Same as all of us.

reply to post by fallow the light


You are fighting an uphill battle here my friend, anyone who uses statements like this

And if he had not been a sperm donor, child creator, then none of this would be an issue.

...is swimming in a sea of ignorance, cannot seperate actual sperm donors from absent fathers, and isn't interested in rights.

By this same logic, all sperm donors have chosen to "create children", and we should track them all down so they can "pony up". Next up would be charging kidney, liver, or lungs donors with manslaughter if a patient dies...afterall they offered up the "rejects" that contributed to the patient's death.

At least I have learned a valuable lesson about donating medical material... I will keep all mine.

Sadly I have a fairly rare blood type I am told...but I no longer feel safe being chariatable in this country. At least with my money, and flesh.

www.dispatch.com... here is another travisty of a child support case

LANCASTER, Ohio --- A Pickerington couple and their son are fighting for custody of a baby born to a Lancaster woman charged with having unlawful sex with the boy, who was 15 at the time of conception. A paternity test shows that the teen is the father of the baby born April 7 to Jane C. Crane, who was 19 when she became pregnant. Now, a judge has ordered him to pay $50 a month in child support and set visitation at seven hours a week.

so let me guess by your logic this boy who was raped should pay child support to his rapist just because his penis ended up inside her vagina and ended up in conception of a child against his wishes. I'm damn sure that poor victim did not want to have at 15 wheres the justice where is the outrage for this?why do his parents have to sue for custody just so he doesn't have to pay child support to his rapist....sorry for going off topic OP i didn't mean to derail but figured while from the usa this was also relevant if the mods deem so it can be removed