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?