We Live in a Messed Up World

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lost_Sheep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The ruling seems in line with the Uniform Parentage Act of 2002. Not sure if Kansas is one of the states that adopted it, or the earlier 1973 version of the same Act (which about 2/3rds of states did) which required a physician to be involved to prevent liability for child support. But it seems clear the intent in this case was for the child to be raised by the couple the sperm was donated to, not by the donor, and the donor wasn’t an active participant in the child’s life from what I’ve read which is generally the benchmark if there is ambiguity in the law (in those states that haven’t adopted the UPA.
 
Oh, what a tangled web we weave…when things are not done naturally. :rolleyes:
 
It’s a pseudo issue. As our world undergoes the most drastic digital and spiritual revolution ever, nobody pays attention. Instead, we focus on trivial pseudo issues, like the recent elections, that act as smokescreens for the real issues that should concern us. Close your eyes and they will sing you a lovely lullaby.
 
The court ruling may be suspect, not because the donor is evidently the father, but because the law sensibly required there be the formality of a 3rd party doctor in the scenario to verify that the donor is truly acting as donor. [We can’t have one night stands being later claimed by the man to be a response to a sperm donation request!]

Perhaps the judge has used some personal interpretation of the facts and convinced herself that the interaction was truly in the nature of a donor. Whether that passes muster is a legal question.
 
The Netherlands has some screwed up laws. I think it’s just a matter of time before euthanasia becomes mandatory there for people if their medical costs get too expensive to sustain their life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top