Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Going on Craigslist to find sperm for a child so that a couple with 7 other adopted children can 'experience' the joys of birthing together smacks of selfish idiocy. The couple look like crazy dependency-collectors, the sort who usually go about seeking actual stray animals to bring home to share a sense of family...
As far as Kansas state law is concerned, they are right to go to the donor for child-support since he is the father, loosely as that is defined here when connecting thru a trashy internet site under what, the job postings, to find genetic material to have another child, any child, by any old male anybody?
I'm not knocking the ability for sensible same-sexers in their quest for self-vindication via adoption (okay, I am), but these two would be considered a bit off by just about anyone who can see that they were living a classic example of projecting what it is they feel they should be taken as: Normal. And compensating for their perceived sex-based abnormality made for a child frenzy to prove an injustice wrong.
Is it me or do these ladies look chillingly alike?
Going on Craigslist to find sperm for a child so that a couple with 7 other adopted children can 'experience' the joys of birthing together smacks of selfish idiocy. The couple look like crazy dependency-collectors, the sort who usually go about seeking actual stray animals to bring home to share a sense of family...
As far as Kansas state law is concerned, they are right to go to the donor for child-support since he is the father, loosely as that is defined here when connecting thru a trashy internet site under what, the job postings, to find genetic material to have another child, any child, by any old male anybody?
I'm not knocking the ability for sensible same-sexers in their quest for self-vindication via adoption (okay, I am), but these two would be considered a bit off by just about anyone who can see that they were living a classic example of projecting what it is they feel they should be taken as: Normal. And compensating for their perceived sex-based abnormality made for a child frenzy to prove an injustice wrong.
Is it me or do these ladies look chillingly alike?
Both the sperm donor and the ex-husband/acting father should pay child support. Parental rights and visitation is another question entirely. The sperm donor gives up his rights but not his obligations.
Erm... no. If you have obligations, you have rights. And you would want it that way.
Actually this is not the first case of its kind. I know of a similar one involving two women but only one child. When the women split the custodial parent who was also the egg parent sued the other woman for support. She demurred saying she had no skin (DNA) in the game. So her lawyer dug up the sperm donor and had him done for support. Retroactively. In the present case although the women support the sperm donor they aren't really able to help him are they? What is he going to do with their good intentions? If they were so well intentioned wild horses couldn't have gotten his name out of them. Reporters with integrity have gone to prison to protect their sources. These women weren't facing anything that severe. Ah... the likely loss of health coverage for one child. Is it possible... just possible that having more children was not advisable here? And why not adopt? Maybe because the adoption boards were on to them? I mean... how do two women adopt 7 children in a state that does not sanction same sex adoptions? And how do we take away from this story that Kansas should sanction same sex marriage? No amount of wanting it to be so could make both of those women biological parents to the same child. The non DNA parent could wiggle out of financial responsibility on those grounds with the right lawyer in just about any state in the U.S.
Okay, I went digging since everyone else was just speculating... seems they DID work, until a recent illness forced one to quit & seek state assistance. That is when the state decided to go after the "dad," probably to avoid having to pay disability benefits. Regardless, this was a decision made by the local government - not the women themselves. So if you want to rage at somebody, why not the lawmakers who are making these decisions?
It's also interesting what one of the ladies had to say about this (more proof that they don't want him to pay child support): “More and more gays and lesbians are adopting and reproducing, and this, to me, is a step backward,” Bauer continued. “I think a lot of progressive movement is happening currently in the world as far as gays and lesbians go. Maybe this is Kansas’ stand against some of that.”
I applaud them for the stance they are taking but that quote bothers me. This guy donated to them for a child they wanted to raise. Now the state is going after him to pay for their child. And their problem with it is that it is a step backward for homosexuals? How about him? They aren't the ones being hounded by the state. How about some acknowledgement that this is a mens' rights issue?
It's like a couple of articles I have seen recently about men not wanting to get married. They then point out how much of a problem this is for women. Somehow society has created a climate where men are increasingly reluctant to get married. But instead of addressing the concerns of these men, we view this through how it affects the poor women who can't find husbands. It's kind of nuts. It's like women getting equal rights in the workforce being viewed as a crisis for men not having someone at home making their dinner for them.
How about some acknowledgement that this is a mens' rights issue?
This isn't a men's rights issue; it's a children's rights issue.
Every child has the right to be born to married biological parents and to be raised and nurtured by them. When that doesn't happen, for whatever reason, it's always a tragedy. To deliberately create this situation for a child is malicious and unconscionable.
Last edited by WesternPilgrim; 01-02-2013 at 03:25 AM..
Going on Craigslist to find sperm for a child so that a couple with 7 other adopted children can 'experience' the joys of birthing together smacks of selfish idiocy. The couple look like crazy dependency-collectors, the sort who usually go about seeking actual stray animals to bring home to share a sense of family.
You have to wonder what that child will think when she gets older by finding out she was shopped for and came into this world by Craigslist rather than love.
You have to wonder what that child will think when she gets older by finding out she was shopped for and came into this world by Craigslist rather than love.
Most likely she'll feel extra special knowing she was wanted enough for extra loving effort to have been taken to get her.
A damn sight better than knowing she was an accident during a drunken 4 AM closing time screwing with "What the hell was his name?"
My guess is that Kansas does not recognize homosexual unions. So as far as the law is concerned the biological mom is the mother and the bio dad is the dad. The state has an interest in insuring that kids do not become a burden on taxpayers so hence the aggressive measures to make the man that fathered this child take responsibility, financially at least.
The point is that all of this could have been avoided if it weren't for Craigslist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From the looks of this group, she is going to need plenty of coverage.
