A question: should a sperm donor (yes, I said “surrogate father” before, which was a poor choice of terminology, but you know what I meant) be held liable for children made with his sperm?
IMO, he should be liable unless there is another person who is willing to stand in his place as parent. No child should have only one parent.
In other words, you’ve already forced her to choose abortion on (supposed) penalty of nonsupport. I consider that immoral. The fact that both of you are unwilling to accept the consequences of your actions is disgusting.
KellyM has the nerve to say:
For one as easily offended as you seem to be, you’ve wasted no time in making an uninformed, inflammatory statement about me.
I haven’t forced my girlfriend to make any choice. She made that choice before she met me.
Furthermore, we’re perfectly willing to accept the consequences of our actions. If a pregnancy occurs, we must do something about it. Read back. It’s not a substitute for birth control. Currently, she is on the pill, and we use condoms. This discussion is regarding the extremely slight chance that she gets pregnant anyway.
Take your ignorant judgement to the pit.
**So, what causes the shift in “juristiction” and responsibility? **
Are you, BNight, a freaken lawyer? “Jurisdiction” is a legal term. Here the word “parenhood” is applied. It ain’t the ownership; more of a temporary custody. The child does not belong to anyone, it cannot be sold or kiled. The fetus is not the child, or a human being. It’s a separate category. A living being. No laws or lawyer’s rules apply to it. Some people think that it can be killed. The situation is complicated by the fact that no clear cut-out point can be established, at which two parental cells become one, then many, then fetus, then child. Do not cry, I know about birth, but fetus becomes viable long before.
To complicate matters more, what culture are we in? “Responsibility” is assigned by tradition.
OK - let’s define “parent”. In galt’s statement, I believe he is talking about financial support. KellyM’s response calls for another person to stand in as a parent - I take that to mean another person actually comes in and helps physically (and possibly financially) care for the child. Legally this would have to be a man, as another woman cannot claim paternity (that I am aware). Did I interpret that correctly, or KellyM, did you just mean physically caring for the child?
To respond to KellyM’s statement, “no child should have only one parent”, I counter that one good parent is better than two parents who fight constantly, considering one didn’t even want the child in the first place. It is my belief that a child raised in the midst of conflict, will seek out conflict. I would much rather my child see how men and women interact positively, rather than him thinking it’s ok to belittle and demean women (as well as smack them around if they protest the verbal abuse) because he sees it everyday in his own home.
Also, exploring the definition of parent, what about a grandparent or friend filling that role of the missing parent? My son and I live with my parents, not because we can’t afford to live on our own, but because I think it is good for my son to be close to his grandparents. I still work and provide for my son, but they refuse to accept rent from me. They do help physically care for my son and even financially, as they pay the rent, but that still does not absolve my son’s biofather from his “financial responsibilities” and his rights to visitation in the eyes of the court.
So, y’all need to define some terms in this debate. What exactly is a parent? What is the position of the biofather in this debate - an actual father who physically cares for the child, someone who writes a check every month, both?
Certain people here seem to continue to focus on abortion - there is another option where the baby is born, but neither biofather nor biomother have the full responsibility of raising the child: adoption. Yes, both parties still become parents, biologically speaking, but they are not responsible for raising the resulting child. If no one wants to adopt the child, the child grows up in an orphanage or foster homes, supported by tah dah: taxpayers.
So, I ask you, Jodi (or anyone else who thinks society should not pay): should children who are carried to term and given up by their parents for adoption (essentially abandoned) and not adopted, not be supported by the taxpayers? And what about getting rid of the Attorney General’s office, which is supported by taxes, and pays for the legal costs in filing paternity suits and child support orders?
GALT says:
Yes, but you have not been saying “I don’t think I should be responsible,” you’ve been saying, affirmatively, “I won’t be responsible.” Those are two different things because, yes, most likely you will. But I take your point.
First, babies are not just conceived through deception; sometimes they are conceived by accident. Second, a woman who thinks she doesn’t want a child might change her mind when she finds out she acually is pregnant. Third, all this is again irrelevant to the issue of a child who is born – with or without your consent – and is inarguably yours and needs to be supported.
Manifestly, she has not, except in the abstract. Even a woman who is firmly pro-choice might choose NOT to have an abortion when she finds out she is pregnant – regardless of what she imagines she would be willing to do before that.
Again – no, she’s not. What I imagine you mean is “she should be on her own.” I just don’t see how you reconcile this with the child’s needs, if the mother alone cannot support it.
IMO, no, because his sperm is merely a product he has sold, under the affirmative representation by the sperm-buyer (for lack of a better term) that he will NOT be faced with a support obligation. In most cases, women who conceive via sperm donation do not even have the ability to charge a man with such an obligation because they do not know who the man is. But this scenario – a woman who knowingly purchases sperm specifically to have a baby and then tries to sue the donor for support – is as unlikely as a man having his sperm stolen. By far the more likely scenario is two people consenually having sex and, either throuh carelessness, accident, or design, a baby resulting. In such cases the father is “on the scene,” so to speak – he is not, in fact, a sperm donor.
You CANNOT force her to make that choice, and rightly so IMO; but neither did she “make that choice before she met you,” except in the abstract. The reality of being pregnant could change her mind.
H_THUR says:
First, almost every healthy baby carried to term and then put up for adoption will be adopted; that’s not the problem. The problem, in so far as adoption is concerned, is placing less-than-healthy babies or older children, who are not wanted the way healthy infants are. Second, children who are accepted for placement for adoption become the responsibility of the agency accepting them – be it public or private. Therefore, the agency should be responsible for the care of the child if it is not adopted, since they accepted it. Third, parents cannot surrender their children for adoption just because they want to. If the parents wish to put the child up for adoption, but the state believes, for whatever reason, that the child is not reasonably adoptable (to coin a term), then the parents rightly remain on the hook. If they absolutely refuse, then we’re talking about abandonment, but the parents STILL remain on the hook financially. Obviously, we cannot compel people to actually parent if they refuse to – but we can make them pay to support their kids if the parenting has to be done by someone else.
Since paternity suits and child support orders provide a net-benefit to society – by forcing natural parents to pay for their own children – why would you be in favor of abolishing the entity that puts the teeth in such orders by enforcing them?
A nearly analogous situation just took place in California: a lesbian couple arranged for a “private” sperm donation from a sympathetic male friend and conceived a child. The couple later broke up and the mother applied for public assistance. “Daddy” is now paying child support under a court order, because he did not donate his sperm through a doctor and because his child became the recipient of public assistance. California allows a sperm donor to legally avoid the support obligation by going through a doctor to make the donation; this donor failed to do so.
His actions/choices contributed to the creation of the fetus, as did her actions. You have said that the fetus does not require outside support.
The woman’s actions/choices contributed to the creation of the child.
I do agree that the child is entitled to support from parents who are responsible for the child’s existence. We simply disagree on which parents are responsible for the child’s existence.
As you pointed out on several occassions, there is a difference between a fetus and a child.
I am not a lawyer of any type, especially the “freaken” variety.
I don’t think that parenthood is a better choice of words, due to its numerous meanings. We’re having enough trouble pinning down definitions in this thread. 
You know, as I said before, I don’t really mind if someone disagrees with my position. But the continued (and seemingly willful) failure to even understand my position is frankly starting to piss me off. I’ve made my point innumerable times and I truly don’t think I can make it any clearer than I believe it is; at this point, you either get it or you don’t – regardless of whether you agree with it. So I think I’ll wander off to see what else people are talking about.
Y’all have fun.
Jodi,
Sorry you feel that way. We fundamentally disagree. The fact that you haven’t converted us to your way of thinking does not mean don’t understand you or are ignoring you.
The california case about the sperm donor is absolutely ludicrous, in my opinion. Anyone have any references? (not challenging the story, just want to read more)
If I could sterilize myself in a safe, effective, and reversible way, I’d do it in a heartbeat in order to not have to worry about this. Instead, I get told to simply not have sex, because people who don’t subscribe to the “children are our most valuable resource” mindset just aren’t appreciated. My options are: A) abstain, and B) seek out a woman who would abort an accidental pregnancy with absolutely no compunction. Considering that B is still leaving my fate in someone else’s hands (she could still change her mind), I guess you’d have me choose A.
I don’t wish to stick anyone with an unwanted baby. I just want to be able to have an understanding with my mate, and not be penalized for her actions. Yes, as you’ve happily pointed out, the baby would not exist without my actions, but the baby also wouldn’t exist without my parents’ actions either, so that’s a completely silly argument. The point is that my actions come with contingency plans, which are spelled out very well. If the woman agrees, the coast is clear. If not, she should stay away from me.
So responsibility is assigned to me, even though I’m not the one being irresponsible. Wonderful.
If this thread were in the pit, this post would be much longer.