Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Debate on Fox--Lesbian Mom Demands Child Support from Sperm Donor Dad
GlennSacks.com ^ | 8/12/08 | Glenn Sacks

Posted on 08/12/2008 12:47:07 PM PDT by PercivalWalks

Recently on Fox's nationally-syndicated Morning Show with Mike and Juliet we debated a New Mexico case where a man who had donated sperm to a lesbian couple is now on the hook for child support to the children's biological mother. The case is detailed in New Mexico Court Orders Sperm Donor to Pay Child Support (Fox News, 7/31/08):

A court battle over whether a sperm donor should pay a higher rate of child support has ended with a ruling that the man is liable because he has taken an active role in raising the children.

Kevin Zoernig had argued he was not required to pay child support because he is a sperm donor and is protected under the state's Uniform Parentage Act.

But the state Court of Appeals noted in its July 25 opinion that this was not a case involving an anonymous donor or a known donor who provided sperm to a licensed physician under an agreement in which he agreed to have no parental rights...

Zoernig agreed in 1994 to donate sperm so that Mintz and her partner at the time, Deborah Mrantz, could have a child. After the couple broke up, Zoernig fathered another child for Mintz, again as a sperm donor.

Zoernig, Mintz and Mrantz had entered into an agreement in 1994 in which the female couple would be the child's primary custodians. Zoernig would serve as a male role model but not be financially obligated to support the child.

Mintz and Zoernig entered into a similar agreement for the second child, born in 1997, court records show.

Although Mintz is the children's primary custodian, they stay with Zoernig every other weekend during the school year and half the summer. Zoernig, 50, now is married and has three children with his wife.

In February 2000, Mintz sought child support payments from Zoernig. The parties agreed the following year that Zoernig would pay $250 a month in child support, plus $50 a month toward arrears, according to court documents.

In 2004, Mintz filed a motion to raise those payments, saying her financial situation had changed. A state district judge adopted a new rate of $670 a month.

Zoernig turned to the Court of Appeals, challenging his obligation to provide any support as well as the higher rate, since the children were conceived through artificial insemination.

The appellate court said he must pay support for both children.

The court said he "enjoys the rights of parenthood," and that the agreements entered into prior to conception "that purport to absolve him of his responsibility to pay child support" are not enforceable.

In this ABC story, Mintz said "It was shocking to me when his lawyer showed up with arguments that he shouldn't have to pay child support because he was a sperm donor. It seemed quite preposterous."

My views on the case are as follows:

1) Zoernig, Mintz, and Mrantz made an agreement. Zoernig held up his end of the bargain and then some. Why is it that mothers are so often able to toss agreements aside in family court as soon as they become inconvenient?

2) Zoernig did Mintz and Mrantz a favor. Mintz returned the favor by handing Zoernig an invoice.

3) Some have dismissed the amount of child support that Mintz is demanding of Zoernig as insignificant. Well, when it was $250, I can understand that. Once the child support went up to $670 a month -- remember that's 670 post-tax dollars -- it's no longer insignificant. Zoernig is a musician who apparently does not make much money. Also, he is married and has three children of his own. This is doubtlessly causing him problems with his family.

4) The mother and those who sympathize with her, including two of the guests on the show, argue that Zoernig is enjoying the rights of a parent without any of the responsibilities. When we're speaking of fathers, of course, "responsibility" is a polite word for child support. I pointed out that this man has been supporting his children for 14 years by playing an active, positive role in their lives. This is far beyond anything that the mother could have reasonably expected, and we can all see how grateful she is.

5) If you want to put it simply in monetary terms, I have no doubt that Zoernig has spent plenty of money on the kids over the past 14 years. For one, they have spent much of their time with him, and he has had to provide a living place for them and cover expenses while they are with him. He has probably also bought them and provided them countless things over the years.

6) Given that Zoernig is not a high earner, even if this were a straight divorce case as opposed to a sperm donor case, there is still no reason why Zoernig should be paying Mintz money. I do believe that there are cases where child support is appropriate. For example, if one parent has been the primary caregiver during a marriage and upon divorce earns significantly less than the other parent, I believe that there should be child support. I do not see any indication of this in this case.

7) If there is anybody in this case who should be obligated for child support it is Mintz's former lesbian partner Deborah Mrantz. It is Mrantz who agreed to have the child with Mintz and the two of them agreed to raise their child. Deborah Mrantz is apparently no longer in the picture, and nobody involved in the show seem to know what had happened to her. Perhaps she left after their breakup and abandoned her child. Perhaps she was driven out of the child's life by Mintz, as is common in lesbian breakups. [To learn more about this issue, see my co-authored column Lesbian Child Custody Battles and Heterosexual Divorce (World Net Daily, 8/5/08)].

8) I'm not surprised that the New Mexico court ruled as they did. Courts will almost always rule that fathers have to pay child support because it is "in the best interest of the child."

9) What's ironic here is that Mintz, by acting as she did, probably cost the children money in the long run. Research shows that when fathers' custody rights are respected, they are quite generous with their children as they enter their college years. In my column New Study Punctures Myth of Uncaring Divorced Dad (Newsday, 6/23/03), I discussed a study which showed that, adjusting for all other factors, fathers actually provide more financial support for their children's college educations than mothers. Zoernig probably would have supplied a substantial amount of money over the kids' teen and college years and into their adult would. Now that Mintz has poisoned the well, I wonder if this will still be true.

10) Mintz was invited to come on the show by the Fox producers. She refused. That's a shame -- I would've enjoyed debating her. Apparently she didn't think she would enjoy debating me.

To watch the video of the show, click here. Also on the show with me were Chicago family law attorney Enrico Mirabelli, who made some good points about the need to respect contracts, as well as two women who sided with the mother, Melissa B. Brisman, Esq. and child advocate Trenny Stovall.

Glenn Sacks, www.GlennSacks.com

[Note: If you or someone you love is faced with a divorce or needs help with child custody, child support, false accusations, Parental Alienation, or other family law or criminal law matters, ask Glenn for help by clicking here.]


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Society
KEYWORDS: culturewar; homosexualagenda; judicialactivism; judiciary; lavendermafia; parentalrights; samesexadoption; samesexmarriage; savethemales; spermdonor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

1 posted on 08/12/2008 12:47:08 PM PDT by PercivalWalks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks

Another reason to just use your sock.


2 posted on 08/12/2008 12:47:53 PM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks
1) Zoernig, Mintz, and Mrantz made an agreement. Zoernig held up his end of the bargain and then some. Why is it that mothers are so often able to toss agreements aside in family court as soon as they become inconvenient?

Welcome to Family Court.

3 posted on 08/12/2008 12:49:40 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (A citizen using a weapon to shoot a criminal is the ultimate act of independence from government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
"Another reason to just use your sock."

ummmmm... for what?

4 posted on 08/12/2008 12:50:24 PM PDT by Mr. K (Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks

Now this is just plain wrong. Makes for a good reason NOT to identify the sperm or egg donors.


5 posted on 08/12/2008 12:51:23 PM PDT by lilylangtree (Veni, Vidi, Vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks

No good deed goes unpunished.


6 posted on 08/12/2008 12:51:24 PM PDT by jalisco555 ("My 80% friend is not my 20% enemy" - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks

yeah... but when the guy takes an ACTIVE role raising the children... who is he kidding?


7 posted on 08/12/2008 12:52:36 PM PDT by John123 (Obambi said that he has been in 57 states. I will now light myself on fire...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

“Sock” as in:

In days of old when knights were bold and rubbers weren’t invented;
The men used socks upon their ***** and babies were prevented.

????????


8 posted on 08/12/2008 12:52:55 PM PDT by QBFimi (When gunpowder speaks, beasts listen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555

It wasn’t a good deed.


9 posted on 08/12/2008 12:53:29 PM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks

Well, this is going to be one heck of a cold shower for sperm donor banks. ;)


10 posted on 08/12/2008 12:54:28 PM PDT by Schnucki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks

Why isn’t this author telling his readers to stop throwing their sperm all over the landscape? Isn’t that an obvious way to avoid most child-support issues?

And he seems awfully supportive of lesbians’ “having a child together” for a writer who professes to support the interests of males. One article it’s “children need Dads,” and the next it’s “but a butch ‘mom’ is okay, too.”


11 posted on 08/12/2008 12:55:44 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("This is our duty: to zot their sorry arses into the next time zone." ~ Admin Mod)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks; All
Yet another example of how lesbians try to stick it to men. Why do lesbian hate heterosexual men and often just men in general?
12 posted on 08/12/2008 12:55:52 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist (Keep working! Welfare cases and their liberal enablers are counting on you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks
Glenn Sacks is again worthless.

Here's the relevant section of the referenced article:

Mintz and Zoernig entered into a similar agreement for the second child, born in 1997, court records show.

Although Mintz is the children's primary custodian, they stay with Zoernig every other weekend during the school year and half the summer. Zoernig, 50, now is married and has three children with his wife.

IOW, Mr. Zoernig is not "out of the picture" in any sense.

I cannot comment on the decision itself, and child support law is rather abstruse in any case. But in his haste to bash the decision, it appears (as usual) that Mr. Sacks cannot seem to address a rather relevant portion of the case.

13 posted on 08/12/2008 12:56:10 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy
It wasn’t a good deed.

Didn't work out well for him, did it? But I take your point, the whole lesbian mother business wierds me out.

14 posted on 08/12/2008 12:56:49 PM PDT by jalisco555 ("My 80% friend is not my 20% enemy" - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks

every child has a mother and a father.

No matter what the recreational sex of the parties, this does not change the laws of reproduction.


15 posted on 08/12/2008 12:58:07 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks

Mintz and Mrantz

Now separated. How wonderful.


16 posted on 08/12/2008 12:58:35 PM PDT by weegee (Hi there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000

child support does not belong to the mother, it belongs to the child and the mother has no power to waive it.

The next step is to pierce the veil of anonymous donations and hold those fathers for their child support obligation.


17 posted on 08/12/2008 1:00:04 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks

“In 2004, Mintz filed a motion to raise those payments, saying her financial situation had changed. “

She became a deadbeat mom???


18 posted on 08/12/2008 1:01:16 PM PDT by weegee (Hi there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

I’d like to know if her lover ever sought visitation after they separated and even if not, why is the woman she shacked up with not financially responsible for child support?


19 posted on 08/12/2008 1:02:52 PM PDT by weegee (Hi there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: John123

At a point, he should just go to court for full custody to raise the children at home with their siblings.


20 posted on 08/12/2008 1:04:03 PM PDT by weegee (Hi there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks
This should be looked on as such, apparently the judge in this case believes that live begins at sperm donation. So when sperm from a man is used to spawn a child even thou the man did not have sex with the woman he is responsible for child support. This should be precedent for future abortion cases. If live begins at sperm donation while having sex with a partner then abortion is killing a child not just a fetus.

What are your thoughts?

21 posted on 08/12/2008 1:04:39 PM PDT by onlylewis (libs want a two class system, one rich one poor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
Why do lesbian hate heterosexual men and often just men in general?

Because we compete with them for the hot babes -- and we're much better-equipped to please the hotties.

22 posted on 08/12/2008 1:07:47 PM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks

The child in question removed from the mother and given to a family to adopt.


23 posted on 08/12/2008 1:08:12 PM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks
Sacks is being disengenous in this article.

The father stupidly thought he could make babies on the cheap. He was wrong and any lawyer could have told him so. Had they used the services of a doctor to perform the insemination, the agreement would have been valid.

the agreement could have been enforceable under New Mexico’s adoption of the Uniform Parentage Act, but the failure of the parties to involve a doctor in the insemination process when there was a "known donor" took these conceptions outside the jurisdiction of the Act’s provision on donor insemination. What remained in the absence of the Act was the clear public policy of New Mexico that a biological father of a child has a legal obligation of support if he has held himself out as the child’s father, and any purported agreement to the contrary is unenforceable as a matter of public policy

24 posted on 08/12/2008 1:08:48 PM PDT by Valpal1 (OW! My head just exploded!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
The next step is to pierce the veil of anonymous donations and hold those fathers for their child support obligation.

Are you out of your freakin mind??

25 posted on 08/12/2008 1:11:06 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (A citizen using a weapon to shoot a criminal is the ultimate act of independence from government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks
The way things are now, it seems that Onan probably had it right.

This loser deserves what he gets (or pays) as far as I am concerned.

26 posted on 08/12/2008 1:11:19 PM PDT by Radix (Think it is bad now? Wait until you have to press "2" for English!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lilylangtree

a. He was not a random sperm donor. It was a private arrangement the first time between a man and two women. The second time, it was a man and one woman. They might even have known each other biblically.
b. It is vitally important that sperm donors be identified so that everyone knows to whom he is related.


27 posted on 08/12/2008 1:15:27 PM PDT by definitelynotaliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: QBFimi

In days of old when knights were bold and rubbers weren’t invented;
The men used socks upon their ***** and babies were prevented.

Man, that sounds like a lot of fun. /s


28 posted on 08/12/2008 1:16:49 PM PDT by Bitsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks

So does the same thing apply if I donate blood that is used to save a gang bangers life, and the gang banger kills a family? Am I liable for the murder?


29 posted on 08/12/2008 1:17:09 PM PDT by Bommer ( I'm not racist, I just hate the white part of Obama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: definitelynotaliberal

Why is there no father on Hunter’s baby’s birth certificate? And she is fighting against any DNA testing for the father.


30 posted on 08/12/2008 1:17:37 PM PDT by weegee (Hi there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Schnucki

No, it will not. The couple didn’t use a sperm bank. They used a friend/acquaintance.


31 posted on 08/12/2008 1:18:35 PM PDT by definitelynotaliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: weegee; John123

Exactly!


32 posted on 08/12/2008 1:21:36 PM PDT by definitelynotaliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: definitelynotaliberal
You're right.

I made several assumptions based on the title, a bad habit of mine, but the content of the article corrected a lot of my thinking.

Since there's no way to remove or edit posts without bothering an admin (that I know of), a lot of my silly comments are out there embarrassing me for years to come. :(

33 posted on 08/12/2008 1:22:58 PM PDT by Schnucki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000

An inordinate no. of posters haven’t read the article. That’s the only reason I can think of for the tremendous no. of inane comments on this thread.


34 posted on 08/12/2008 1:24:31 PM PDT by definitelynotaliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: weegee

I don’t know the answer, but I think it’s because, convinced as she appears to be that ‘he has the power to change the world’, she would like to see him, the father of her child, ascend to the Presidency and be seated at his own right hand. She’s protecting him so that he’s not disqualified from further runs at the Presidency in the court of public opinion.


35 posted on 08/12/2008 1:28:37 PM PDT by definitelynotaliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Schnucki

No need to be embarrassed ‘for years to come’, for crying out loud! I have to say the hyperbole on FR is getting hard for me to handle. Take it easy already! ;-)


36 posted on 08/12/2008 1:33:31 PM PDT by definitelynotaliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: PercivalWalks
The bottom line here is that Mintz used her lesbian status to urge this guy into donating sperm and then comes back to the traditional marriage/heterosexual leaning court for support money.

I am curious to know from a 'law dog' if a written contract regarding custody and support between partners and then, with the gentleman beforehand would have done anything to ward off this court case......

38 posted on 08/12/2008 2:04:03 PM PDT by BossLady (People will do anything, no matter how absurd, to avoid facing their own soul. ~Carl Jung)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks
Zoernig, Mintz and Mrantz had entered into an agreement in 1994 in which the female couple would be the child's primary custodians. Zoernig would serve as a male role model but not be financially obligated to support the child. Mintz and Zoernig entered into a similar agreement for the second child, born in 1997, court records show.

If this agreement was in writing, that should be that. The judge would be completely out of line for overriding the written agreement. Zoernig should appeal the decision.

If this was just a verbal agreement between them, then I guess Mr. Zoernig has learned a valuable (and expensive) lesson. Get it in writing!

39 posted on 08/12/2008 2:15:50 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall cause you to vote against the Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks

There was a case some years back where a man had been having sexual relations with a woman and agreed to pay child support when she became pregnant. She had the child but he played no part (other than paying the child support) in the child’s upbringing.

The man subsequently discovered that the woman had been having sexual relations with a number of men at the time of the child’s conception. DNA testing (or perhaps blood typing) conclusively ruled out the man as the father of the child.

He petitioned the court to stop paying child support but the judge denied the request ruling, in effect, that the law was primarily focused on the welfare of the child and that, even though he was not actually the child’s father, he had been acting as if he were and that alone was sufficient connection for him to continue making support payments until the child came of age. IIRC, the ruling was upheld on appeal.


40 posted on 08/12/2008 2:20:50 PM PDT by Captain Rhino ( If we have the WILL to do it, there is nothing built in China that we cannot do without.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000

I think the difference in this case was that it was NOT anonymous. If it was donor 47890 who made said kids, donor 47890 cannot be made to owe money.
This guy made kids, though sans sex with the mother. Not anonymous. Thus not free from child support.


41 posted on 08/12/2008 2:41:59 PM PDT by tbw2 (Freeper sci-fi - "Sirat: Through the Fires of Hell" - on amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks

The ultimate nerve, approved by radical man-hating feminists everywhere. In their world-view, men are good only for their seed and their money. And they are trying to eliminate the need for the seed.


42 posted on 08/12/2008 2:43:32 PM PDT by BooksForTheRight.com (Fight liberal lies with knowledge. Read conservative books and articles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BossLady

The judge addressed that question (which is why Glenn Sacks commentary stinks because he ignored that salient point) and the answer was that their agreement didn’t conform to the requirements of the Uniform Parentage Act and so was unenforceable as a matter of public policy.

For a contract to be legally enforceable, it has to conform to the law.


43 posted on 08/12/2008 3:43:21 PM PDT by Valpal1 (OW! My head just exploded!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks
If a State makes "gay" marriage legal, then won't situations like this be rare? One partner will give the most nurturing care and the other the most financial care and so a divorce will have the one who provided the most finances paying the child support, would it not? And why bring a 'sperm/egg donor' into the situation if there was no legal document outlining what he/she was responsible for. And, IF, as in this case, there seemed to be, how can a Judge rule against an already existing document without more information about the "other half" of the gay-couple? Seems totally UNFAIR and should be appealed.

Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it's wise. (Sperm and Egg donor births.) And if a 'gay' couple want to have a baby, then are they REALLY 'gay?' Why would someone who knows that 2-gender sex is for procreation and has decided to have a same-gender sexual relationship, have a reason or physical desire to produce off-spring? Why would someone be in a same-gender sexual relationship if their hormones were raging for them to produce a baby? Why wouldn't they marry (or have a sexual affair with) someone of the other gender and produce off-spring?

What I can't quite grasp (obviously) is why someone would want to ruin a perfectly good same gender close relationship by bringing sexual intimacy into the equation. I have close friends I love with all my heart, but I would not bring any sexual liaison into the relationship. Male or female. And I can say I love them more than I ever loved either husband.

So, if you can stop laughing at me, FReepMail me an explanation, okay?

44 posted on 08/12/2008 3:48:24 PM PDT by HighlyOpinionated (The World is a Tragedy for Those Who Feel (Democrats) but a Comedy to Those Who Think (Republicans).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
Thank you for your input! The article alluded to the fact that there had been a contract of some sort however, did not seem to go into any details.

I perused the Uniform Parentage Act and it does state, in so many words, that if a man says he is the father...then he is financially responsible.

To this end, even if you have a contract drawn up....it does not seem to matter. My understanding, according to the UPA, is that if you claim parentage....you are responsible...period. What is your opinion?

45 posted on 08/12/2008 4:57:21 PM PDT by BossLady (People will do anything, no matter how absurd, to avoid facing their own soul. ~Carl Jung)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: BossLady

Their agreement wasn’t waiving their parental rights to the child, but instead tried to waive the child’s right to parental support.

My opinion is that children have a right to the support of their parents and that parents cannot waive the basic rights of their offspring as a matter of public policy.

Nor can they sell their children into slavery or give consent to their minor children being used sexually by others.

The judge was right and Glen Sacks picked an inappropriate case to pimp his agenda.


46 posted on 08/12/2008 6:36:17 PM PDT by Valpal1 (OW! My head just exploded!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
Yours is a much more eloquent way of stating it ;)

Thank you so much!

47 posted on 08/12/2008 8:33:11 PM PDT by BossLady (People will do anything, no matter how absurd, to avoid facing their own soul. ~Carl Jung)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Bernard Marx
Because we compete with them for the hot babes — and we're much better-equipped to please the hotties.


48 posted on 08/13/2008 12:39:57 AM PDT by Cheburashka (Democratic Underground: Ever wonder where all those who took the brown acid at Woodstock wound up?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks
"A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."

But as my son pointed out...

"A child needs a father like a fish needs water."

Cheers!

49 posted on 08/13/2008 4:12:52 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: definitelynotaliberal
No, it will not. The couple didn’t use a sperm bank. They used a friend/acquaintance.

Substantial benefits for early withdrawal.

Including continued interest.

Cheers!

50 posted on 08/13/2008 4:14:36 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson