I… don’t think that your children are waking up. They must have been reaaallly tired.
I’m guessing she’s assuming that Sampiro’s hetero DNA will cancel out the lesbian DNA, because God knows that Sampiro and his sister want a straight baby. :rolleyes:
luck bastard. I’m straight, and I want…a hot lesbian couple to invite me into a nursecarmen sandwich that will result in intercourse…
Sampiro, I gotta tell you, every time I think you can’t surprise me any more with what your sister says/does, you manage to come along and prove me wrong yet again.
It’s writing like this, my friend, is why you really, really need to find a publisher.
The decision whether to respond to this was a tough one for me. I’m not licensed in either of these states, and have no professional knowledge of their laws. So please don’t treat this as legal advice, or rely on it in any way without further checking with a lawyer licensed in these states. In fact, if the lawyer friend who said this IS licensed in both these states, I defer to him/her, and you need not read any further.
But this advice as to the law in these states, as reported by you without any qualifications, surprised me. My understanding was that most states didn’t immunize all sperm donors from paternity claims. Rather, the laws usually require that some prerequisites be met. Sometimes a physician must be involved. (in other words, no at-home turkey baster inseminations). Other statutes contemplate inseminations of married women with the consent of the husband, and are silent as to other situations, implying that inseminations where there is no husband, or where he doesn’t consent, leave the donor on the hook.
See, for example, Alabama’s law:
Absent this, the applicable law seems to be that natural father is the legal father for paternity/support purposes.
What I saw of Georgia law (I didn’t look as carefully) seem to be similar.
Again, I’m not a lawyer in either of these states. I also didn’t research this with the degree of care that I would if I were licensed in these states. You’re not my client. Don’t rely on this. This is general information designed to encourage you to look into this issue more fully with a licensed attorney in the applicable states (if you haven’t done that already), because it seemed to me to be possible that you had misunderstood what you’d been told, or perhaps the person who made the statement you’re relying upon may have had some assumptions about the type of insemination that’s under discussion that may not, in fact, be applicable.
(Of course, if your decision not to agree to any of the insemination requests stands, then no need to look into this further.)
Thanks Random. My attorney friend did indeed cite me the relevant code (he actually had to research insemination law in depth when clerking on a case in which a woman who had borne a child conceived artificially {from sperm other than her husband’s} wanted sole custody of the child in the divorce), but since I decided I didn’t want to do this anyway I didn’t pay a lot of attention to the technicalities.
I wonder if today, when artificial insemination is de rigeur and all matter of odd possibilities from “snowflake babies” to gay adoption to cloning are beginning to be possible, if the legal codes and legislation are keeping up with the reproductive technologies and social changes in most states.
I try really hard to read through threads completely before I answer - but Holy Crap! I read your other thread about the Great Falling-Out around the 4th of July or whatever, and thus eagerly anticipated hearing what your sister had to say…but never in a thousand years would I have thought she’d come out with this gem. I’m sitting here eating chocolate and reading this like I would a romance novel, with complete and utter enjoyment of the simple pleasures. This is a great thread, and I’m so glad you resurrected it!
Glad to help. As for your final comment, my sense is that the law in most states is **not **keeping up with technological and social changes in this area. There’s too much opposition, much of it religiously based, to basic threshhold issues like gays or single women having kids, which prevents most state legislatures from modernizing their laws.
That said, a public policy argument could be made that allowing biological fathers to avoid child support by claiming that no sex took place, and the insemination was via at-hom artificial means, is a bad idea. First, it encourages false claims, in that it’d be a great way to get around a positive genetic test that otherwise would be irrebuttable. Second, it leaves the kid without a legal father, thus increasing the change that the state will be on the hook for his support.
She actually cited as a precedent Andrew Jackson. Andrew and Rachel were childless, while her sister was incredibly fertile and had more kids than she and her husband could afford. When she had twins, Andrew and Rachel rode to their cabin, picked the twin they wanted, took it back to the Hermitage and gave it to a slave to wet-nurse. (Our father was a Jackson enthusiast for Og-knows-whatever reason and we went to the Hermitage several times as kids and somehow this tale stuck with her.) She’s mentioned several times that she envies the informality of those days.
I love my sister very much, warts and all, but personally I think she needs to stick with dogs. I remember when we were kids (she’s almost 9 years older than I am so she was an adolescent and I was a little boy) we’d play with dolls and rather than saying “go to mama… here’s daddy” it would be "come to Miss Kathy… okay… here’s Mr. Jon… "- even then there was no desire to play paternal roles. Of course when her husband had a stroke a few years ago and was touch and go for a moment and she was absolutely devastated (he is mostly recovered, save for being a lot less decisive than he used to be) it jumpstarted her wish for a child because she realized how alone she’d be if he died. I was terrified whenever she said “I’d give anything to have him healthy again” that she’d donate her entire estate to some greasy televangelist when he got well (but thankfully she didn’t).
well here’s another, “on the other hand,” … you might have low sperm motility and thereby little to no chance of fertilization of eggs with your sperm.
From your mouth to Og’s ear… ;j
I’ve been. Not by lesbians, but by a close childless friend who was firmly decided to have a child, was single and preferred that the child would have a known father (since the other option was artificial insemination with an unknown donor). Essentially all options were open : I could recognize him or not, participate in his upbringng or not, etc…Being childless myself and advancing in age, I hesitated for a long time, and eventually backed off for several reasons too complicated to explain to people not knowing us.
It turned out her attempts with artificial insemination failed, and she renounced. (so in all likehood it would have failed too with my sperm). Which is somehow fortunate (for me) because I eventually came to the conclusion that I should have said yes, so I probably would have had regrets had she succeded.
Oh! And I understand your confusion. I was equally confused, and stayed so for months, considering like you the other other other other hand…
I hope you’ll choose wisely and will be satisfied with your decision.