Under topic: No Good Deed goes Unpunished

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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!

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!

[timmgirvan]

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?

[timmgirvan]

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!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

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?

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.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

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.

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?

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

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?

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!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

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!

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!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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!

[Danzig]

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.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

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.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

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

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

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

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 ) 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?