Posted on 10/28/2005 6:07:22 PM PDT by neverdem
We can usually sympathize with one or another party to a dispute: one is usually more in the right—or less in the wrong—than the other. But with the breakdown of accepted conventions, it increasingly happens that neither side arouses our sympathies.
Take a recent case in Sweden, where a lesbian couple wished to have children. An understanding and liberal-minded male friend agreed to donate his sperm, and three children were born to one of the two women between 1992 and 1996. But then relations between the two women deteriorated, and they split up.
The mother of the children found herself alone and in difficult straits. Who would support her, in her—and her children’s—time of need? Her former lover was unwilling, because—after all—she was no relation of the children. The sperm donor had made it clear from the first that he had no wish to be a father in any but the most literal biological sense; he thought he was merely doing the couple a favor. He therefore felt no moral obligation to support the children, and his conscience was clear.
Nevertheless, the government’s department of social security—the potential surrogate parent of every child—sued to force the sperm donor to pay. After a case lasting four years, he found himself obliged henceforth to support the mother and children financially.
The president of the Swedish Federation for Sexual Equality declared the legal decision an outrage. “It is scandalous,” he said. “The man has been condemned to be a father even though he did not take the decision to have the children. Above all, one of the women who took part in that decision has been absolved of all responsibility. If one desires equality of rights for lesbians, it is anomalous that it should not be she who was obliged to support the children financially.”
It would take considerable space to elucidate all the errors in the president’s statement. But I think that the language of rights, and above all of equal rights, is what leads us into this sordid legal and moral swamp. If women have a “right” to children, in the sense that not having them if they want them is an infringement of their rights, then of course lesbian women can no longer accept childlessness as the natural consequence of their condition. Let it not be said that new medical technology is responsible for this change in attitude, incidentally: the kind of artificial insemination offered in a domestic setting by the sperm donor has been possible for a very long time. No, the culprit here is the idea that the fulfilment of our desires, no matter what our condition, is a right. As for the well-being of the children in this case—beyond the provision of sufficient financial support for them—that seems to have entered into no one’s thnking.
A plague on all their houses, then: the idea that one “condemns” a man to support children is in itself both revealing and chilling.
Yeah, and? Where's the little wench that scooted away? Track her butt down and slice up her paycheck!
And then sew 'em both up so it never happens again.
Yeah, and? Where's the little wench that scooted away? Track her butt down and slice up her paycheck!
And then sew 'em both up so it never happens again.
Let's not be hasty now.
I guess I'm the only one here who favors the biological father. Ignore the homosexuality stuff for a moment. Sure, it's bad, but that doesn't impact the legal point, which is the expectations of both parties when they entered into the agreement. The man thought he'd simply be providing sperm and that would be the end of it; the women claimed to want to be parents and take responsibility for the children. That's the issue. I don't know what the contract specifically said, but the story seems to make clear (though one never knows) the general terms. People need to be able to freely enter into contracts, and one of the few responsibilities government should have is to enforce those contracts.
No good deed goes unpunished...
Any man who has sex with a woman runs the risk of being a father, whether he wants to or not. There is only one solution....let's see if any of the poor fellows on this board can figure it out. Here's a hint: it is foolproof and free.
What's worse, these idiots defame us, the U.S., because we don't sign onto their ridiculous, bankrupt---morally and fiscally, liberal policies!!!
They are his kids. He should sue for custody.
The difference between a regular bank and a sperm bank is that at a sperm bank you LOSE interest after you make a deposit.
"I totally support the Swedish government on this. Life, family, children, and responsibility are not games for queers to endlessly play with."
I don't see how your second sentence follows from your first (or vice-versa). Unless the government is going to outlaw gays from having kids, or outlaw sperm donations to lesbians, the guy shouldn't have to have his agreement retroactively changed by the government.
The legal reasoning is that child support is a right of the child rather than the parent, and as such any contract by the parent waiving it is invalid. I can't speak for Sweden, but US courts have upheld the principle on numerous occassions.
One more reason why I will never be a sperm donor.
If said lesbo recipient of donated sperm had the remotest particle of common sense, she would have seen this coming a mile away.
And crossed her legs at the mere suggestion of the concept.
If lesbians break up, do they both have to pay alimony?
I agree. I think the departing "spouse" lesbian should be responsible for child support. I view it more like adoption, I guess. Adoption doesn't relieve one "parent" of liability.
This guy brought a life into this world, and expected homosexuals (known to be self-centered and irresponsible people, in general) to take care of that life. They didn't. Now he has to pick up the pieces. His government says so. There's not much room for surprise here. As I say, It's socialism.
Good point. However, this guy DID make that decision, when he donated his sperm.
The lottery has now officially be replaced as the "moron tax"
Well, I suppose that's true. The situation wouldn't exist if she'd said, "I'm in a temporary relationship. It would be inappropriate and financially risky for me to have children." However, that would make sense. Expecting people to use sense will give you a headache.
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.