Judge rules Kan. sperm donor owes child support

[qui_est_ce]

True but consulting a lawyer would not have addressed the real issue. How have we created the idea that human beings can be treated as commodities to be purchased on Craig’s List?

Irresponsible in not covering their behinds to avoid liability? No! Irresponsible in not considering the amazing power of creating a human being and treating this power with the kind of reverence and care it deserves.

Again this speaks to the beauty and validity of our Catholic faith where the first concern is the dignity of the human person. There is no dignity in buying sperm or eggs or surrogate wombs. There is no dignity in buying children for adults’ selfish desires. A pox on all of their houses
Lisa

Indeed.

They artificially conceived a child for their own desires. Could they not have adopted a homeless child?

 

[Cricket2]

As I said earlier this is wrong. This judge has made a terrible decision that will only serve to contribute to the degradation of human life. As I doubt the practice of IVF will stop it should at least be made against the law or be made policy that those who become pregnant this way cannot sue for child support from the donor.

Of course this decision could force a lot of potential donors to change their minds and keep their pants on.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

“The right for support belongs to the child, not the parents, the filing says.”

ATB

 

[CarolNoel]

This is just plain nuts.

 

[JimG]

It doesn’t seem to me that the legal reasoning is something entirely new. The idea that a father has an obligation to support his children is well established.

 

[Coatimundi]

Perhaps I am wrong, but some of the earlier comments leave me thinking there is some confusion between artificial insemination and in-vitro fertilization.

With AI, sperm is inserted into the woman’s body artificially, but conception occurs naturally. Multiple embryos are not produced, at least at no higher rate than occur via the normal route.

IVF, on the other hand, involves removing a woman’s eggs from her body. Sperm and eggs are mixed together in a laboratory, and multiple embryos are produced. One or more of those embryos are inserted back into the woman’s body. The remaining embryos typically are frozen, in case they are needed later.

What took place in the case we are discussing was a crude form of artificial insemination, it was not IVF.

More information is at:
webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/guide/infertility-reproduction-treatment-care

 

[JimG]

Yes, there is a difference between artificial insemination and IVF. I would not say, however, that conception occurs *naturally *in artificial insemination, since it does not occur in the context of a marital act. (Or even, in the case at hand, not even between partners who are married.)

 

[LisaA]

Perhaps I am wrong, but some of the earlier comments leave me thinking there is some confusion between artificial insemination and in-vitro fertilization.

With AI, sperm is inserted into the woman’s body artificially, but conception occurs naturally. Multiple embryos are not produced, at least at no higher rate than occur via the normal route.

IVF, on the other hand, involves removing a woman’s eggs from her body. Sperm and eggs are mixed together in a laboratory, and multiple embryos are produced. One or more of those embryos are inserted back into the woman’s body. The remaining embryos typically are frozen, in case they are needed later.

What took place in the case we are discussing was a crude form of artificial insemination, it was not IVF.

More information is at:
webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/guide/infertility-reproduction-treatment-care

If it was a reference to my posts, no I’m not a bit confused. I’ve done all of the above WITH ANIMALS. My point is that when you take the natural self giving love of the marital embrace out of the picture, you lose some portion of the humanity in creation. Children become commodities or accessories to be purchased just as I purchased eggs, fertilized eggs, frozen embryos, and semen for my animal breeding program. Again it’s not the CHILD who is less human obviously but the approach to creating a child becomes a technological procedure. Further this lends itself to 'super babies" or mail order babies…hey look at this sperm bank…do you want tall, blue eyes, white skin, athletic ability, brains in the father of your child. You too can help create the Master Race

That this was a crude form of AI cheapens the whole thing even more. Hey little Suzie I found your daddy on Craig’s List, he ejaculated into a jar and then I inseminated myself with a turkey baster…good GRIEF.

The whole thing is just so disgusting from the parties involved to the procedure to the access of public assistance to the fight between the two Lesbians. The poor child born into this nightmare…

Lisa

 

[jilly4ski]

I guess I wasn’t clear. I apologize for that.

What they did was irresponsible, for the reasons you and others have expressed. In addition, what they did was not legal.

I was responding to a comment which claimed “being able to file for child support should be a concern of anyone donating to unmarried women or gay couples specifically.” I simply was pointing out that the man would not have been ordered to pay child support if the threesome had used a physician to conduct the artificial insemination. The judge’s ruling is not about artificial insemination itself, but about doing the insemination in an informal manner which was outside the law.

The decision in the Kansas case has limited application to other couples or threesomes. The ruling does not say that sperm donors, in general, can be held accountable for child support.

The point is, that as a donor, yes, he could have, should have used a clinic, but that is not a physician, but nurses or other medical personnel, he personally does not use a physician, that is for the insemination, of which he has no part, and the donation is then out of his control. The control is solely in the hands of the clinic or the recipient of the donation. So once he hands over the sperm, he has no control over whether the donee uses a physician for the artificial insemination, or they boil it for broth and feed it to their fishes. There is a complete lack of control over what the other party does regarding the donation. Yet he becomes responsible for actions over which he has no control.

Generally court decisions have been favorable to sperm donors, so this case was surprising.

 

[KCT]

Children seen as rights and commodities…sad, sad, sad.

 

[KCT]

Generally court decisions have been favorable to sperm donors, so this case was surprising.

Does this remind anyone of the classroom scene in Legally Blond?!

 

[Coatimundi]

The point is, that as a donor, yes, he could have, should have used a clinic, but that is not a physician, but nurses or other medical personnel, he personally does not use a physician, that is for the insemination, of which he has no part, and the donation is then out of his control. The control is solely in the hands of the clinic or the recipient of the donation. So once he hands over the sperm, he has no control over whether the donee uses a physician for the artificial insemination, or they boil it for broth and feed it to their fishes.

The Kansas law regulating sperm donation requires the use of a physician. Because a physician was not involved, the judge declared invalid the non-paternity contract which the threesome had signed.

The ruling was not about sperm donation in general, but how the donation was performed in this particular case.

 

[Coatimundi]

If it was a reference to my posts, no I’m not a bit confused. I’ve done all of the above WITH ANIMALS. My point is that when you take the natural self giving love of the marital embrace out of the picture, you lose some portion of the humanity in creation.

I agree with you, and have never disputed what you said about the nature of artificial insemination.