Posted on 05/10/2014 2:05:49 PM PDT by NYer
This is a very disturbing website. A man recently learned that he is not the father of his daughter. He and his wife are shocked because it turns out that the biological father was a man who worked at the IVF clinic.
They found out quite by accident as shown in this video.
Family Discovers Insemination Switch after Tracing Genealogy
The clinic worker is dead and the clinic is gone. The university associated with it is refusing to warn people about the possibility that this nutjob Lippert may have done this many times because "the burdens of this information are likely to outweigh the benefits to families."
Now the couple has a website as an attempt to warn people.
We believe that it is possible that Thomas Lippert has many biological children living in the Salt Lake City area, Minnesota and beyond. The parents of these children may be completely unaware that their child is not biologically related to the presumed father. If you or someone you know was conceived through artificial insemination at the fertility clinic associated with the University of Utah, otherwise known as Reproductive Medical Technologies, you need to be aware of this potential. We encourage you to have your children tested at one of three companies offering genealogy DNA tests where the biological relatives of Thomas Lippert have tested for comparison purposes. These are 23andMe, AncestryDNA and Family Tree DNA. This is not a legal paternity test and is for informational purposes only.
Although some may feel that it is preferable not to know if Mr. Lippert is the biological father of your child, we believe the knowledge of biological heritage is essential to avoid half-siblings who may be living in the same communities potentially engaging in romantic relationships, as well as for family medical history.
Thomas Lippert worked at the fertility clinic from 1986-1997 or 1998, but began donations in 1983. It is possible that his sperm sample was exchanged with other intended fathers' samples and/or was frozen under other names and used after this time.
Were you born that way? Or did you really have to work at it?
Look up “personal” and “individual” in the dictionary...
Thank you for posting that, so I don’t have to...lol
Okay which one of you told Freepers that old LA Dodger joke here LOL!
BE NICE Freepers leave to Steve Garvey to us SO cal folks Okay LOL!
Somethings you are better off not knowing. But that doesnt mean that this worm should not be boiled in oil if he were still alive.
In the context of the paragraph, I meant genetics doesn’t matter in fathering. Or mothering.
Of course genetics is important biologically. But anyone like yourself and me who’ve had parent / child relationships with non genetic loved ones knows that it doesn’t affect the work or the love of the relationship.
So you believe the sins of the parent dirty the innocent baby who arrives therefrom? Ok, but I do not. I can’t argue with the religious beliefs of others. But I believe every child is born innocent and deserves love and a good life, regardless of the behavior of his parents.
I can tell you are angry at me or vehemently disagreeing but I don’t understand what I wrote to cause it, sorry.
I think that you’re probably taking things out of context — it looks like the poster was repudiating the idea that the children are responsible for the sins/crimes of their parents; if that’s the case then it is not out of step with the scriptures.
Deuteronomy 24:16
Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.
This story gives literal meaning to that old legal term, chain of custody!
I believe in scripture and have never found a reason to not do so. Everyone is born in sin as mentioned in my earlier post… Psalm 51:5. However, scripture also talks about something that indicates that parents who engage in sinful practices are actually handing down an additional curse to the next generation….. this so called 'generational course' can be broken but regardless, this has nothing to do with mankind's view of what we might think someone 'deserves', even if referring to a newborn baby. If you want to talk about what mankind ‘deserves’, Hebrews 9:27 says this….. ‘And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:’ It doesn’t say anything about exceptions, the age of the person etc. That word ‘appointed’ infers getting what one deserves……. which is to die and then be judged for one’s sins. However, this curse too can be broken with a way of escape as can be found in many scriptures…. Here is probably the most well known one. John 3:16 ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’
We agree to disagree about the innocence of babies.
Whether you agree with me or not is immaterial. In this instance, I’m just the messenger.....
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.