Harrison Danneskjold Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 Software nerd: I wonder if the lesbians have grasped that, if they succeed, henceforth no man in his right mind would dare to follow suit (and other lesbians in their state will find it increasingly difficult to have biological children). I wonder if at some point they'll pass a law to fix that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 28, 2013 Report Share Posted October 28, 2013 Software nerd: I wonder if the lesbians have grasped that, if they succeed, henceforth no man in his right mind would dare to follow suit (and other lesbians in their state will find it increasingly difficult to have biological children).It's probably not they who are suing, but the state. Who ever has the child has probably gone on to food stamps and other welfare. In such cases, the legal mom has to fill a form giving the biological father's details. The state then tries to get the biological father to pay for the child, instead of keeping the child on welfare. Sperm donors are exempt, but the state is going after this one because it did not follow the usual state-approved procedure for sperm-donation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted October 28, 2013 Report Share Posted October 28, 2013 The state then tries to get the biological father to pay for the child, instead of keeping the child on welfare. Sperm donors are exempt, but the state is going after this one because it did not follow the usual state-approved procedure for sperm-donation. This kind of makes sense. If you want to use the State, you should expect to follow their rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 28, 2013 Report Share Posted October 28, 2013 This kind of makes sense. If you want to use the State, you should expect to follow their rules.From what I gather, the mom is using state welfare. So, the state is going after the guy. So, it is still unfair to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted October 28, 2013 Report Share Posted October 28, 2013 Oh, right! Whoops. Maybe it's a little cynical, but I always warned my bothers that unwanted babies are to straight men what AIDS is to gay men. And these days the straight men might have it worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 28, 2013 Report Share Posted October 28, 2013 ... unwanted babies are to straight men what AIDS is to gay men.Too true. I've told my son something along those lines. Also, with the fairly anti-abortion sentiment in the U.S., a younger girl could be under a lot of pressure from family, not to have an abortion. And, if she is underage, the law may give her parents some type of legal rights on the decision. Come to think of it, if the law says that parents must give consent for a minor's abortion, then the girl and boy ought to be off the hook for child-care. Lack of grand-parental consent should be taken as an implicit undertaking by the grand-parents, to financially support any resulting kid (but, choice of control and custody should still be the choice of the biological mother). Harrison Danneskjold and StrictlyLogical 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted October 29, 2013 Report Share Posted October 29, 2013 Agree... responsibility to bring the child into the world kicks much later than the time of conception.  At the time or a few weeks later the problem is relatively easy to deal with physically and economically. If a "sperm donor" does not want to participate with the eventuality which would be the child, the "to be" mother should take full responsibility if she undertakes the time and work to transform the embryo, fetus, into a human being. If she doesn't want to take on that full responsibility she should end the process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Repairman Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 To RebirthOfReason: I am extremely grateful that you shared your story. I have not, as of yet, read through the many volumes of other postings on this thread, but yours strikes me as, so far, the most critical to this topic. My story is so closely parallel to yours that the only differences worth noting is the context of time and available technology. My story began exactly 30 years ago, when I decided to become involved with a woman strikingly similar to your "Jamie." There was no morning-after pill at the time. Today, I have a son with whom I maintain contact and good relations. My son is a strong and reasonably intelligent young man, capable of handling the truth. In the context of this discussion, I made the sacrifice as I perceived it to be the morally correct choice, to forfeit 17 percent of my earnings for 18+ years, as the state demanded. It was a decision made with naivety, ambiguity and animosity. My years as an absentee father were at time driving me to the edge of insanity. Thus, my alias: Repairman. I do not wish to make this a discussion about me. This is an argument about law and ethics. After reading only some of the postings on this thread, I thought my head was about to explode. How can anyone not see the moral injustice of a legal system that subjects a man to 18 of his most important years to mandatory payments, Machiavellian motherhood manipulators, and an option to spend time in prison? I am also very grateful to JMeganSnow and RationalBiker for their persistent defense of reason. For anyone who might not understand my statements, please refer to the first posting submitted by RebirthOfReason. He and I cannot be the only two Americans that have this experience in common. I promise to read through all of the postings soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.