Under topic: No Good Deed goes Unpunished
 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271116,00.html...Don't care who the parents are....this is just wrong! ..Court says sperm donor is liable for child support!

But the guy was involved in the kids lives. Not like he went to a sperm back dropped a load and left. He knowingly gave his sperm to someone and was involved in the children's lives. Not that I am saying it is right, but there is a difference between a sperm donor and a sperm giver.

Well, I don't believe in any form of artificial impregnation but that's another topic...the way I see it, you provide the means for a woman to become pregnant, you accept responsibility for the outcome!

He donated sperm...NOT fatherhood....gave gifts and things from the goodness of his heart, was not in the parental duo, so the beloved couple splits up and now this poor schlep is court mandated to step in as the Father?? If you can't see the wrong in that,well......

I can't! His sperm impregnated the woman...that makes him biologically the father. It's way past time that men in this society take their share of responsibility. As I said, I don't believe in any artificial means of human reproduction but if you make a woman pregnant...you're a daddy!

If this guy had an affair,paid for sex...yeah then he should be held responsible(maybe)But to say that he has a legal responsibility to support a broken union child is preposterous BTW...the one who should be on the hook is the other broad, just like a "real" married couple would have to do it!

Maybe??? Who is the biological father of the child? End of discussion!

Big Brother strikes....your wish.... You answered the 1st half of the post..What happened to the other half?

i disagree. sperm proves a biological link--certainly doesn't make a person a father.

the couple were the parents, the two parents should support the children-not the man now caught because $$ in involved. of course now that he's passed, they want the social security--so it's not like the guy pays, we do! yipppeee.

i agree.

so many same sex couples want to have a level playing field, and then muddy the waters with cases like this. can't have your cake and eat it too...or apparently, you can!

The correct spelling of the word...."Halleluleah" seems appropriate!:cool:

So because it's a gay couple...now I see the problem! I don't care if the couple is gay or hetero, the man's sperm created the children so he is the biological father! According to the article the one woman is paying support by the way!
I couldn't understand why all the "conservative" folks were denying the simple biology of the situation but since the couple was gay...now I understand!:rolleyes:

Somer : don't fall back into your 'failsafe' arguement! 2 adults pay the freight...either way you cut it....that how people are supposed to do it.. If I was sterile and had "en vitro" or hit the sperm bank to have my wife concieve, and after a few years we split up...I sure as Hell can't go to the sperm donor to help pay child support! Do your eyes glaze over every time the 'gay couples' thing comes up, or what?

the ONE woman is paying ...but she can't keep up...so she flushed her conscience and "clubbed" this poor guy who aided her! No wonder there aren't more Good Samaritans!:rolleyes:

Your posts (and others) speak for themselves...the "broad" mention and others, if you let people talk long enough, the truth of their feelings always comes out. You try to turn it around on me but frankly that's pathetic...when I first responded to this thread, I hadn't read the article yet so I assumed we were talking about a straight couple...my response is the same regardless! Once I read you reference to the "other broad" and your snub of gay unions "a "real" married couple"...I went and read the article, only then did I understand why you conservative christian types are having so much trouble with this...gasp, they were gay...the horror!! Of course this is some evil scheme...but guess what, in your scenario above, I'd say the same thing...you wouldn't be the biological father, the "sperm donor" would be! The laws of man might protect him (apparently in Pa they do not) but the law of nature is inviolate, and morally...no matter how you spin it, a man impregnates a woman, regardless if by "remote control" and he's a daddy and yes, responsible for said act.

no, it's got nothing to do with whether they're gay. these two people opted to make a child, and raise it. then their relationship goes south, and a third party gets dragged into it? he helps two people who otherwise could not have a child to have one, and now suddenly it's all about biology.

if the two women are the parents, what has biology got to do with it? so if two people adopt, the partnership ends, would the biological parents suddenly have to worry about legal action?? after all, it's suddenly about biology? ridiculous!

Legal action is determined by the laws of society but there is a "higher" court. People here are always talking about personal responsibility but it seems to depend a lot on circumstance doesn't it? If a man's sperm impregnates a woman then he is the biological father of the resulting child...I'm sorry if that doesn't suit folks but it is a fact! A child has ONE biological father and ONE biological mother...they are responsible for that child, sorry if that is inconvenient. Other folks can legally adopt the child and in the eyes of the law assume responsibility but where does that leave personal responsibility...the responsibility for our acts? The child may grow up never knowing his/her parent(s) and may consider other folks to be his/her parent(s) but that doesn't relieve the biological parent of his/her responsibility for said child's existence. In today's society, we allow "artificial" impregnation and that makes folks lose sight of the concept of responsibility, and we allow abortion so the man and woman have an "easy fix" so as to not have to deal with the consequences of their behavior...shame on us! But strip away all the BS and the fact still remains, the man who's sperm caused the pregnancy IS responsible for the resulting child!

well, in an age when so many are promoting adoption rather than abortion, i would hate to see people hesitate--since down the road, that biology might jump up and bite them in the behind.

somer, i understand your point-to a point. but i take the position that whoever raises a child, loves a child, teaches them, nurtures them--they are the mom or dad-maybe not biologically, but in every other sense of the word. after all, if you adopt a child, i would think it would be painful to be told that you're not REALLY the parent!

anyone can get someone pregnant-and yes, in an ideal world, that person would take full responsibility. but it doesn't happen that way, and in this newer age of different lifestyles, a two parent, biologically related family isn't always the case.


the most ideal thing would be for people to consider the child before bringing one into the world. after all, a child is a human--maybe people take that all too lightly, it's a tremendous responsibility. i want one isn't reason enough to have a child.

Thats BS...but apparently you don't know it! you continually spin on the poor downtrodden gay people and how Conservative/Christian people attack them....that's irresposible of you. Let's say it was 2 men that were partners and wanted a child. Obviously, they couldn't accomplish this by themselves,so they have a woman...err..remote controlled. they live happily til someone else shakes the timbers and they split up. One guy cares for the child,the other doesn't. The guy who has custody of child then sues for support from the mother of the child and wins support. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

Mrs Z, I agree with everything you just said! Certainly the people that raise a child are seen by that child as parents and they see that child as "their's". In a world where there are so many unloved and unwanted children, adoption is a wonderful thing...all that is 100% true. But the reason so many folks see having a child as a "right" and feeling that they can satisfy a "want" by having a child is the fact that responsibility is left by the wayside. Some folks here see my point as "not worth arguing" and that's sad! Often times, things that seem stupid on the surface only seem so because of our mindsets...a product of our socialization...I might be so bold as to call it brainwashing! Human life and responsibility that comes with free will are not simplistic concepts to be brushed aside because of some "soundbite" philosophy. It cannot be denied that this man is the biological father of the two children who were created via the introduction of his sperm, the question then becomes is he responsible for his acts? I say "yes" others, while preaching responsibility when it comes to crime and other life choices, say "no" and that confounds me! Of course it becomes a complex issue...what about adoption and other issues that arise? They are each issues separate but connected to the original concept of personal responsibility. Just as some poster feels inclined to state the obvious...that all abortions are not an "easy fix", what about the cases where the mother's life hangs in the balance, what about rape etc.? Again, separate but obviously connected issues. BUT, my point is that you can't justify avoiding responsibility for your acts by pointing out possible ramifications related to the status quo anymore than you can justify abortion in general based on arguments about rape and mother's health. Society should not be the deciding force with these issues...they are personal choices. If you create a child and deny responsibility for same...that's your responsibility...your free will...and the consequences are your's as well. Same with abortion...you decide to have an abortion...the consequences are your's. Unfortunately, we need laws to govern us because folks won't always do the right thing. Hopefully the laws of man will be morally correct, in this instance the Pa court made a decision that I agree with, others disagree. I have made my point the best I can, I would feel the same if the court decided differently.

Somer: you are confounded,to be sure! Let's put aside our purported understanding of each other and see what you stated in one paragraph. "Society should not be the deciding force with these issues...they are personal choices" and "Unfortunately, we need laws to govern us because folks won't always do the right thing". What is the Left's credo..."you can't legislate morality" And yet you agree that some laws(which may be unpopular) must be established...for our own good! I don't like abortion(with the usual exceptions) and I dislike the Govt having to pay for the indescretions of the hedonists who don't take precautions. You got to the same place...how,I'll never know. It is my understanding that a sperm bank was to be a beneficial avenue for childless couples. It grew to include females(and males on occasion) who wanted a child without the "unwieldy" restraints of traditional homelife. No problem. This is where your idea on sperm banks comes in(as yet unexplained). It is inconceivable to me that you could expect the simple issue of sperm to force fatherhood on a donor. The partners(gay or otherwise) form the parental duo...and the sole responsibility for financial support should be on the "partnered couple" unless they go on welfare. And btw....you didn't answer my last post and query...how unscholarly of you:p

I do say that though...the sperm that impregnated the woman came from this guy (they apparently did this at home so I'm unsure of the method...nor do I particularly want to know :eek: ) so he IS the biological father, he is half responsible for the resulting children. I've read back over the posts...what issue that you raised didn't I address?

Basically, what the guy should have done was tell the woman to go to a sperm bank. He made the conscious decision to give the woman his sperm to make a baby. No he may not have wanted a baby but he did make one.

Sperm banks are in this world for a reason. I understand that the guy was just trying to do a nice thing and the women are taking advantage of that, but he did make the conscious decision to make a baby.

That's true Buffy, under Pa law, he is responsible according to the article. My issue of course goes deeper as I am against any form of artificial impregnation.

This is ridiculous. It's like giving up a child for adoption, and after the adoptive parents split up, being hunted down for child support.

The two partners who split should, regardless of their bitterness over their split, be grateful that this man was willing to help them in the first place.

I look at it from my own life. If two close lesbian friends asked me to donate sperm, I would do it in a heartbeat. If they turned around after splitting and tried to hit me up for child support (after I very clearly already signed away my rights to the child), there would be something very wrong with this.

All this talk about how it was "his choice" and he "created a child" is complete folly. This pregnancy was not the result of his hedonistic sexual escapades or his own lack of responsibility. It was a donation so that two people who could not have a child would be able to have a child. Ungrateful biatches.

Sick.

BrianW,
Good one.
Now that I chimed in, any guess how long it will take for the baba-balongna guy to respond?
To me, this whole thing is a bit hee-lair-eee-ous.
What was the name of the Woody Allen movie...the one with all those guys strapping on their parchutes gettin' ready to jump from the plane...ya know the one.."Everything you wanted to know..." about something?
Anyway, does this case have "serious implications", like...do I have to give up my swimmin' tadpoles and put those nicely taxidermed pollywogs on a mark down table at my next yard sale?
I only ask cause ya seem so informed, and I agree with so much of your opins.

Brian, regardless of whether you think the women are good folks or not (I have no idea) the man IS the biological father. Nobody is saying he was involved in "hedonistic sexual escapades" but I am saying that he is responsible for creating two human beings (along with the biological mother of course). When you say you would gladly "help" your friends create a baby...what is it that you are saying? A baby is not a piece of property, it's not the same as if you helped them build a patio...your actions would create a human being...a child...and you would feel no responsibility for that life? You might be able to legally sign away any legal responsibility but I submit you'd remain morally responsible!

Baba,
You are basically correct regarding the different points of view here...I'd say that my viewpoint is more based on a moral and ethical overview as well but yeah, that's about right. I think I said something along the lines of "you conservative christian types"...I'm not saying all or even most but certainly the more "conservative" or "fundamentalist" christian folks are, the more anti-gay they present....timm's language, "broad" and "real" support my statement in the context of this board and the personalities involved (OK, "broad" is offensive to all women not just gays).

Somer -- there is a HUGE difference between feeling a sense of responsibility to the child, and being court-ordered to financially support it. I would certainly feel responsibility for the child I helped to create, but that is a far cry from what happened here. If I made an effort to help two friends of mine who, in good faith, wanted to have a child together, I would certainly expect that it would be their responsibility to take care of said child. If they split up, if we want to talk morals here, changing their mind about being parents and asking for help in becoming parents (while hitting up a sperm donor for cash) is the only morally bankrupt position in this case. It is absolutely no different than an anonymous sperm donor, and those donors are not called on for child support. These woman are soulless, morally bankrupt individuals.

And while children are not "property" in the sense of a car or a pair of earrings, really, if we cut all the crap they sort of are property at that age. That's why people say "this is MY son" instead of "this is the young gentlemen who sprang forth from my loins." Ever try stealing one?

Baba,
I agree with your overview. As a Wiccan, I believe the only difference is the name we give the Author...I believe all folks who believe in a supreme being are in fact worshiping the same entity...just using different names and different "methodology". Yes, I believe there has to exist "natural law" and the law of man sometimes is in line with same and sometimes not!

Brian...so what you are saying is that because these two women behaved immorally (in your opinion) that relieves the man of his moral responsibility? How does that jive with free will and individual responsibility?? And a human being is never "property"...a parent has a MORAL responsibility to care for, protect and educate a young child, that involves setting rules and limits and controlling aspects of the child's life but that does not constitute "ownership"...the fact that so many folks see children as something they are "entitled to " is part of the problem.

If a biological mother gives her child up for adoption and a man and a woman adopt the child -- if those two break up, is it right for the female adoptive parent to hunt down the biological mother for financial support? Of course not, she is the mother, she is not the parent. People who become parents through adoption or sperm donation are taking on the responsibilities of parenting -- that very act relieves the biological mother or father of their parenting responsibilities. That's what sperm donors are for -- so that women can become pregnant without another man having claim on their child. So why does this donor's lack of anonyminity make this case somehow different from an anonymous donor?

They are the same thing. Biologically he is the father, but he is not the parent. Now that their relationship went to crap, this lady wants him to be posthumously financially the parent?

It's all about good faith. Somer, let's say you needed $10,000 to make sure your house wouldn't get foreclosed on. If I had lots of money, I'd certainly be willing to give that to you if you asked me to help save your house. Now if you turn around and use that money to hire a hitman to kill your neighbor, and then try to blame it on me and make me accept criminal responsibility for it because it was my money and I should have been responsible in giving it away -- well, it would sort of be as outlandish as this scenario.

Loaning someone money is hardly the same as creating a life...totally different situations. You state that a biological parent is "relieved of his/her responsibilities" when someone else assumes same...I disagree and this is where we think totally differently...we are responsible for our acts (free will, personal responsibility), nothing anyone else does can relieve us of this, this man is the biological father...this will always be so...no matter what others may do! I'll say it again, I am opposed to all means of artificial impregnation for this very reason (and others). I simply cannot comprehend why those who are so adamant about folks taking responsibility for their acts when it comes to crime or lifestyle deny responsibility for creating a life...

Well homosexuals or heterosexual couples with a sterile husband are in a bit of a pickle then as it seems you're advocating that homosexuals and heterosexual couples who are both not able to reproduce on their own should not have children -- and if they do (by whatever means) they will never truly be the parents because someone else will always be responsible for their kids on a biological basis.

Obviously my money comment is on another plane from the concept of a child, but the idea is the same. Someone says they want/need something from you for one reason (whether it be so they can have a child to love with their partner, or to save their house) and then turn around later and change their mind and try to make you responsible for what they've done with it (making you responsible for the child, or killing the neighbor). The personal responsibility here lies with the mothers, not with the biological father. If you disagree with that, so be it, but it certainly seems to border on denying the blessing of parenthood to homosexual or infertile couples.

Post 20-the example?

If you mean the question about "what's wrong...", nothing is wrong with that picture! The mother always was responsible for bringing the child into the world!

I cannot change biology...it is the natural order of things that it takes a man and a woman to conceive a child, I'm not denying gay or barren couples anything..it is the natural order. I know lots of women who have told me they wish a man could carry a child and deliver, I understand their point but I'm not able to change that!
I believe in adoption...I think it is an act of uncommon goodness and sacrifice to adopt and raise a child. There are millions of babies in Africa who have lost their parents, why not adopt one and save them from a life of unspeakable horror? If you adopt a child who has living biological parents however, you should do so with the realization that those parents have a continued responsibility toward that child. Legally you can work out a deal where they have no contact and/or legal responsibilities but the moral link will always exist. When I married my second wife, she had three small children...I raised them and was "dad" but I always accepted the fact that they had a biological father who I could never be...I raised them out of love for them and their mother not because I thought they belonged to me! It didn't make me love them any less...why should a barren or gay couple who adopt be any different? And...as I've said before, children are not a "right" they are a gift, I feel for anyone who wants a child and is unable to have one but that doesn't justify trampling over natural law for someone's perceived "right of ownership"!