And he agreed to a verbal contract?!?
Posted on 07/25/2004 11:05:59 AM PDT by Slings and Arrows
The article is pretty vague on the point, but I think you're right - this was nothing like 'sperm donation' as it is normally understood. It sounds more like the agreement (if it existed at all) was a ploy on her part to continue the affair - he acquiesced, and now has to face the consequences. The guy went back for a freebie and got stuck; no sympathy from me...
Q. Can women can get pregnant from anal sex?
A> Of course. How do you think lawyers are conceived?
And he agreed to a verbal contract?!?
Yeah, but did you see the size of his target!? I better get over to the Nascar thread before I get banned ;-)
The recipient should purchase the commodity to establish cash flow direction .
I agree. His first mistake was fathering children he didn't intend to be a father to. I can't imagine growing up knowing my father didn't want anything to do with me, and just donated the sperm. I'm adopted, but I at least know I came along as a little mistake, not a plan, to a pair of HS kids, and they did the right thing, and I ended up in Ward and June Cleaver's house.
Your correct sir, go get that 5 gallon frozen bucket from the clinic and take it home to destroy it.
At least you will have the pleasure of dying alone to treasure.
shot coffee through my nose you bastard :-)
The old line about the little head doing the thinking for the big head seems to apply.
Seriously, things like this are the reason I would never consider donating sperm. Little legal principles like "ex post facto" and "due process" seem to go out the window when "The Children" are involved.
Give me a break. Anyone can claim "we had an agreement".
I hope the poor child didn't inherit his/her father's intelligence genes.
This guy wasnt a donor, he just got his estranged girlfriend pregnant.
This was always the legal Achille's Heel of the in-vitro fertilization movement. A mother does not have an exclusive right to wave a paternal obligation. Despite the feminist movement's fierce protestations, the responsibilities of fatherhood can neither be abolished nor annulled.
lol
A verbal agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on.
I would give credit to the owner of this comment, but I don't remember who it is-I'm thinking Leo Derochia. Adding insult to injury, I probably mispelled his name too.
The thinking would be that both had an interest in creating a life which costs money to bring up.
This is a liability issue for the courts and not a simple contract agreement.
I would think they consider any contract between parents to be secondary to the needs of a child.
Plus if the courts rule in favor of the contract over the child, then they are ruling that the government has the first responsibility to pick up the expenses instead of first both biological parents.
I can see why a contract that leaves the public with the bill will not fly in courts.
I'm not sure it's a joke. :-)
Are you nuts?!
There is: Adoption, living together, girlfriends, nieces, nephews, brothers, sisters.
You sound like a bitter female, ex of someone.
I'm not sure it's a joke either, but that didn't stop me from ROFLMAO!
Pulllease!
Folks today, move to four corners of the Earth - so supporting a brood doesn't guarantee a damn thing.
Plus we XY's die much earlier - so what did I miss out on? Drooling on myself?
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.