I think you would have a hard time finding people who think he should - maybe one - but i dont doubt you will try to make it into a strawman.
I read the headline inside the link and couldn't bear more, idiocity-induced brain damage was already too much.
Another person just created a thread with a link and a quote in it. This isn't much better. Maybe you should contribute to the discussion you're trying to start.
This part just seems weird in some ways.''I can’t help but feel this is somewhat of a political issue.”
Since as far as I know Kansas is a republican state it seems to be a republican attack on potential donors, the aim seems to me to make them afraid because they might have to pay child support.
If you read the article, it appears that the lesbian parents don't even want it to happen. It's entirely the state of Kansas who is forcing the issue, as they forced the biological mother to disclose the name of the sperm donor by refusing benefits if she didn't.
It does puzzle me, though, why they sought a sperm donor through...Craig's List? I can only assume it was a less expensive path than going to a sperm bank. But unless the guy did his legal diligence prior to giving the sperm, he could be in trouble now.
---------- Post added 2012-12-31 at 02:01 PM ----------
This guy was nothing but a doner. He has no responbility to these children. He should receive compensation from the state for the stress and legal fees he has occured.
It is technically his kid and needs support. How is this any different than a man who wants his woman to get an abortion, she has the kid and he is on the hook for support?
This is just another case of the state going after people for money.
The craigslist thing is weird since you can get the stuff for a few hundred dollars from a bank. Its the insemination thats expensive and you would have to do anyway.
these are not his kids
he should not pay
I can see how it is legally tricky, since he did donate sperm outside of the more "protected" means ie a bank, and instead resorted to Craigslist, which actually in a literal manner makes him responsible... but really? It's pretty obvious that he was donating sperm for another couple, not for himself, and the same protections that other sperm donors receive in terms of not having any legal attachment to the child should be applied to him. Anyone who does this to people who decide to participate in helping another human being, and have no desire other than to aid others in finding happiness, is a pretty lowly individual.
“A fool is not a person who does not know something. Rather, a fool is a person who is given information but who chooses to ignore what he is given based on how he wants things to be, rather than how things are."
General Off-Topic Forum Moderator
... whatever, people are stupid.
So now all the women who give their children into adoption should pay child support. Really ... where is this world coming to.
If you read the article, the other mother in this situation even WANTS to provide support - but due to Kansas State law, which does not recognize same-sex marriage or same-sex partnerships in adoption, she can't. They even had to adopt their other children as single parents, because they could not as a couple.
How do people in that neck of the woods sleep at night?
OT: I feel like I saw this story a while back (like, months ago)...don't know why it's popping up again. It's mind boggling that the laws won't allow for her partner to pay for child support (really, it's beyond foolish), and it's flat out offensive they want the donor to pay support.
im prity sure you need to so something like that to legally donate
---------- Post added 2012-12-31 at 09:36 PM ----------
im sure i read that the guy didn't give sperm through a legal and secure channel