Judge rules that Kansan who provided sperm to lesbian couple owes child support

Aunt Em,

I hate Kansas.
I can't stand you.
I'm leaving.
I'm taking the Dog.

Dorothy.

 

Not yet.

Once the right sort of judge comes along someone will try to do this however.

It may not even work the first time but nothing can stop them from try try trying again and once such a finding is made the precedent is set.

 

The only precedent here is the one where biological fathers are responsible for providing for their children. And Kansas has THE LAW. Specifically

Article 22. - PARENTAGE ACT
23-2208....... 
(f) The donor of semen provided to a licensed physician for use in artificial insemination of a woman other than the donor's wife is treated in law as if he were not the birth father of a child thereby conceived, unless agreed to in writing by the donor and the woman.

 

He fathered a child with a woman and the CHILD has RIGHTS.

DUH

He fathered a child.

Sorry but men just don't have the luxury of simply declaring they will not be responsible for children they father.

And the man who creates that child should not be allowed to simply deny the child it's rights nor burden society with the responsibility for the child he CHOOSE to father.

 

No, if there is a legal adoption by a mother AND a father that is perfectly legal and the rights and interest of the child are taken care of. Should we be telling men that if they allow their sperm to impregnate an unmarried woman with no father to adopt to take his place he may very well be held responsible for that child legally and financially, yes.

Nope a legal adoption cancels the legal and financial responsbilities of the former parent.

I have two adopted kids, once I signed the adoption papers the biological father had his responsibilities both legal and financial cancelled by the state and I took them on.

- - - Updated - - -

What an intelligent response.

 

Your ignorance of me is quite apparent and makes you look quite silly. Lack of rebuttal noted.

- - - Updated - - -

The child was the first thing mentioned.

 

Why does that change anything? If the arrangement is true, why does a doc need to be paid for the decision?

Seems like a bad decision to me, but boring.

 

If you play in the kitchen don't cry if you get burned. Men know that a their fathering a child is a very real consequence of having sexual intercourse. Can't play dumb after the fact.

If the roles were reversed her and it was a male homosexual couple getting a woman to birth a child for them, yes.

- - - Updated - - -

It should be done under medical supervision and no doctor should be inseminating single women. If he is going to take part in the procedure then make sure a father and a mother is present for the child.

 

Anything that helps stop gay couple from having kids is alright by me.

 

Can't just make a baby and walk away as a father?

I assume you're not American. This has become tradition.

 

That's just seeking to 'punish' people for having sex for prudish reasons - since women legally can have an abortion then it's not longer 'man's responsibility' since has no say in the decision - it's not a man's responsibility if the woman chooses to keep the pregnancy, since he has no control over it.

Only way it would really be fair, is if either abortion did not exist (meaning the woman was forced to carry out the pregnancy) or if the man has a say in whether or not she gets an abortion.

 

Its holding fathers and mothers responsible for providing and caring for the children they created. Make that optional in the case of men, and too frequently they would chose to not be responsible.

 

Good to see the fairness enforcement by feminism.

*sarcasm

 

Well, I wouldn't go that far but I am opposed to this insistence that gay couples must be given equal preference as biological parents when it comes to raising children, ALL to avoid offending the gays who cant participate, is absurd.

 

No it is seeking to make people responsible for the consequences of their actions. If the woman has an abortion then their is nothing for which the man to be responsible it's a moot point. And since he can't force her to have an abortion he suffers the consequences of his actions.

It's not about what's "fair" to him it's about what is "fair" to the child he created.

By your logic men would simply be no longer responsible for any child they created and could never be held responsible for them. Men would have free reign to impregnate as many women as they could and never have to be responsible for the children created it. What an absurd proposition.