Posted on 10/13/2005 7:54:42 AM PDT by School of Rational Thought
A Swedish man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple will have to pay child support, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The man, from Örebro, is biological father to three children with the couple. The Supreme Court has now confirmed rulings by two lower courts that he is liable to support them.
The 39-year old man donated his sperm to the lesbian couple at the beginning of the nineties. Three sons were born between 1992 and 1996.
The man claims that it was never intended that he should take reponsibility for the children, but rather that the women would be their parents and he would meet them occasionally.
Under pressure from the women he signed a document admitting paternity, and on this basis the court decided that he had the financial duties of a father.
(Excerpt) Read more at thelocal.se ...
As we used to sing the refrain at the fraternity.
Calm down. This is Sweden, the purpose of which is to demonstrate the folly of socialism and atheism.
Yep. Good luck to the next lesbian couple who wants a guy's sperm.
That's professional grade poetry! Wonderful!
From the article: "But the court ruled that this was irrelevant, and that he was still the children’s legal father."
Ok. So I assume the femine half of the 'couple' kept the children. The butch one vamoosed. Do the kids really have two mommies and one daddy or one mommy and two daddies? Is the lesbo butch butcher than the male butch? Does the female daddy have to pay support as well?
Thank you. I feel much better now. :-)
"Reproductive Rights" is one of those public issues where the inequality between the sexes is rarely discussed.
Reproductive rights does not exist as a legal concept for men, and men are regularly told that they have responsibilities and not rights. A man has no "reproductive rights" that a woman is bound to respect, whether in nor out of marriage, to keep the baby or not. The only right that men have is to keep their pants zipped up, as the course of their lives and their hope for posterity is entirely dependent on the woman's "choice".
I remember hearing a feminazi screeching about how vital "reproductive rights " were for all human beings, insofar as their ability to determine the course of their lives is concerned. It got me to wondering how it is that no comparable "reproductive right" exists for men other than the right to keep your trousers zipped up. A man's income can involuntarily be confiscated to care for children that he does not want, affecting the course of his life. Under the law, he is utterly responsible to support any children with his DNA, and often even for those without it. In many states, women are allowed to ABANDON newborn children that they do not want at hospitals or firehouses, no questions asked. Men don't even have any "reproductive rights" in marriage, because his wife retains her "reproductive rights" if she "chooses" to exercise them.
I don't think either sex should have these "reproductive rights", and should deal with the concequences of a pregnancy, wanted or not. But if as the feminazi says, these rights are vital to human beings, than I wish to suggest the following remedies. An unmarried man, upon being promptly notified of an unwanted pregnacy by his mate, should have the option of a paternal veto (abortion) absolving him of financial and legal responsibility for the child. A married man who discovers that his wife has had an abortion against his wishes should recieve presumptive grounds for a divorce or annullment of the marriage, with the same holding true for one who concieves against his wishes.
Than again maybe the feminazi thinks that men shouldn't qualify for "reproductive rights" since she probably thinks men aren't human anyway.
My point is that men have no "reproductive right" that is INDEPENDENT of a woman's choice, wheras women have options that can be and are exercised independently of a man's wishes. Note that this feminine reproductive veto extends to nullification of the man's wishes whether the man wants the child or not, whether in or out of marriage. While I am acutely aware that this is in large part due to the uniqueness of the reproductive process, this nevertheless leaves the man without any independent ability to influence the woman legally.
I am not even necessarily saying that this is a bad thing, but I do find it curious that we often behave as though the only party affected by the birth of a child is the woman, and to prevent a negative influence on the course of her life we must preserve her right to kill her unborn child. If unmarried, she can "choose" to keep the child and can enlist the support of the state to forcibly take money from the sperm donor against his will. And if he wants the child, then he must yield to her choice to abort. Legally he is told that he has no option other than the one that the woman "chooses" to give him.
Again, I think that BOTH parties should allow a normal pregnancy to take it's course, and come to a mutually agreed upon resolution. But if we insist upon a regime where a "reproductive right" is allowed for only half of the human race, than I think that men should have some LEGAL option to influence the woman's "choice" in either direction, rather than act as though this isn't a significant life altering event for them as well. The one option that I would absolutely forbid, of course is a forced abortion.
Having said all this, I do think it unlikely to happen. Men are legally held to the strictest of standard of responsibility where conception is concerned.
There once was a young man from Sweden
Who claimed t'was a garden of Eden
Till he partnered with dykes
Fathered one of their tykes
Now it's cash forever he's bleedin'
I agree, the 1930s and 40s were much better.
We have a lot of fun over there making up limericks, using double entendres, and sometimes even learning some useful vocabulary.
Couldn't top yours...but was inspired to try one...
thanks...
Will check it out...
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.