Posted on 08/23/2005 4:33:44 AM PDT by grundle
B - "The common law and the law of all fifty states prior to 1973 imposed the obligation of support on unmarried mothers exclusively."
Me - how is statement B a valid argument against statement A? I'm confused.
This woman had an affair...she put her husband that was divorcing her as he father on the birth certificate. She made an agreement with the donor to never come back on him for support.She has lied throughout this whole process.
The sperm got in that dish because she made an arrangement with this man, one he took in good faith. When a man goes thru the clinical process of IVF he should be able to assume a limited role in creating and raising the children as agreed upon.
Not being able to have babies for some women is devasting and this ruling probably just took alot of men who were willing to pass on their genes out of the picture. People will suffer because of this selfish self centered woman. This is a mess of her creation.
can't waive what you do not have.
Most common appearance was during a divorce where a demand for a waiver was either offered or demanded. Not judge would ever permit it. (at least a judge who knew law)
It is not a valid argument.
I read about the court case here on FR.
I agree about the need to understand that sex is not a strictly recreational exercise, especially outside of marriage.
I just don't know that I agree that the woman (who has no responsibility to prove the appropriate use of the money) should be allowed to hand the man a bill for support in all circumstances. Again, I haven't had time to think about it - I'm trying to be a productive member of society at work, currently! ;-P
Have a good day!
Your solution is a simple one, but not realistic. That is just not the world we live in. People are going to have sex. Babies will be conceived in and out of wedlock.
Why do I get the feeling that you're ok with people having sex outside marriage, but if the woman gets pregnant, its her fault?
That's essentially what I'm saying here. This ruling makes any kind of agreement between donor and prospective parent null and void.
This ruling, in that jurisdiction makes it impossible for single parents or gay couples to pursue IVF and surrogacy.
Bottom Line.
Not all people--only men.
I tend to agree, unless it was one of those "anonymous" donor things.
Clearly you forgot the sarcasm tag.
yes as long as you are saying that such "agreements" are void before they start and not voidable after judicial ruling.
It is not impossible. It just means that all the control is in the hands of the natural mother in IVF cases. unless the donor's parental rights are terminated by court order, he is on the hook so to speak.
"in days of old" out of wedlock sex resulted in perfectly healthy babies born prematurely shortly after wedlock.
Agree completely.
Oh I know quite a few couples who had shotgun weddings. They are still married today.
Nope. Didn't.
Here's the deal: if you don't want to 'risk' getting a woman pregnant, get to know your hand. Other than that, with every form of contraception, there is always a chance of pregnancy.
As my HS English teacher said about sex; 'Don't play an adult game unless you want to deal with adult consequences.'
Fallen women.
So having sex with fallen women is ok for men?
Women get pregnant, men do not.
Therefore, evolution designed women to behave differently: to prefer having sex with a man in a secure relationship.
Being by nature so inclined, it would be less likely for a woman to find herself pregnant and alone.
Men on the other hand, nature has gifted with a desire to mate with a great number of women.
Mating with as many women as possible better ensures that the man will pass his genes down to the next generation.
You see, unlike a woman--who can always be sure the baby she carries is her own--a man can never be sure his woman's baby is his.
Therefore it is suitable for a man to hedge his bet by having sex with a great many women.
However bear in mind that the most extreme examples of this behavior generally are found in men who believe themselves especially successful (by whatever definition of success they prize).
Your average guy is much less likely to carry on outside of marriage--but even so, I suspect most wives should find men who are untrustworthy to be sexy.
As having the baby of such a man better ensures any male descendants of hers will do their best to spread some portion of her genes around ensuing generations.
There's only one reasonable conclusion...men are screwed. Society in general and the courts in particular are willing to rewrite rule, contract and law to make men responsible, retroactively if necessary. Unfortunately, there many women who support this, and are therefore not fit for a relationship with a man.
Relationship and marriage don't make sense for men anymore. Any situation that requires someone be a chump to participate is doomed to failure.
Thanks.
That's what I've been trying to tell them all.
If government is still required to side with women whether or not women have a binding contract (marriage) with a specific man, then why do we need that contract anyway?
Might as well get rid of marriage as it is no longer needed.
Because we now have DNA testing and the long arm of the law.
(How romantic! LOL.)
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.