Together eight years, eight children (I know, they adopted most of them) and now they aren't together anymore?
The state's actions are outrageous but the bigger problem here is a lack of commitment and a lack of understanding of the effects of your actions. Why on earth would you adopt or have that many children if you hadn't even made the commitment to stay together? I don't think this couple gave adoption the thought that it should have and that is a huge problem for society and for the children left in this situation.
I wonder if a man who were to use a female surrogate could do the same to the egg donor?
Nah, prob not.
But yeah I've pretty much decided that if I do ever have kids... it'll be through a surrogate, with an egg donor.
Although a single straight man using a surrogate is strange, and I might be viewed with suspicion... it is the ONLY way for a man in America to have children and not have them taken away at any moment.
This is another reason why same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to 'procreate'. Marriage: father and mother and children. Why is that so hard for liberals to understand? Now we've got a lesbian OctoMom and she's on the dole. I can just guess who approved of all of these adoptions.
If I was twenty again, I'd put my sperm on ice and get the snip. It's an extreme thing to do, but you've got to protect yourself from this type of case law.
For years now, the feminist/socialist paradises of England and Canada have been making sperm donors (including those who donated 'anonymously' at sperm banks) pay "child support" when the 'parents' split up and the female 'parent' needed a new source of income. And both countries have seen the result of those policies: a complete lack of sperm donors -- to the point where appeals for sperm donations have sunk to using shaming language in attempts to goad men into becoming donors (and future cash cows, most likely).
This is undoubtedly just the first move by the government to start doing the same thing here; it's been tried before (i.e., trying to discover the identity of an anonymous sperm bank donor so that he can be made to pay "child support"), and it's just a short judicial jump from making a private donor pay, to having sperm bank donors who donated under conditions of anonymity to have to do the same thing.
Any man who has previously donated sperm would be wise to contact the bank where he made his donation as soon as possible and have his sperm destroyed -- otherwise, he could very well find himself on the hook for at least eighteen years of "child support" payments. (Remember, the kids are 'his' ONLY when money is considered -- otherwise, the kids are HERS!)
This will set off a firestorm of consequences, many of which the feminists and socialists (as usual) have not bothered to consider. At the very least, it will be the death of the U.S. sperm bank industry and (just like the UK) the consequent end of the supply of donor sperm that infertile couples have depended on.
Ironically (and amusingly), it will also be the end of the same donor sperm that the single, thirty-ish, man-hating, feminist career woman ex-carousel riders with ‘baby rabies’ have ALSO depended on. (Can you say "schadenfreude"?)
9 comments:
Together eight years, eight children (I know, they adopted most of them) and now they aren't together anymore?
The state's actions are outrageous but the bigger problem here is a lack of commitment and a lack of understanding of the effects of your actions. Why on earth would you adopt or have that many children if you hadn't even made the commitment to stay together? I don't think this couple gave adoption the thought that it should have and that is a huge problem for society and for the children left in this situation.
Plus, there's that thing about letting two lesbians deliberately rear a child without a father. That sort of matters too.
I wonder if a man who were to use a female surrogate could do the same to the egg donor?
Nah, prob not.
But yeah I've pretty much decided that if I do ever have kids... it'll be through a surrogate, with an egg donor.
Although a single straight man using a surrogate is strange, and I might be viewed with suspicion... it is the ONLY way for a man in America to have children and not have them taken away at any moment.
another one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255241/Sperm-donor-ordered-pay-child-support-lesbian-couple-despite-giving-rights-child.html
I'm on board, @Capt.Capitalism...and I just turned 35 a last Tuesday--my genes are safe!
Eman
This is another reason why same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to 'procreate'.
Marriage: father and mother and children.
Why is that so hard for liberals to understand?
Now we've got a lesbian OctoMom and she's on the dole.
I can just guess who approved of all of these adoptions.
If I was twenty again, I'd put my sperm on ice and get the snip.
It's an extreme thing to do, but you've got to protect yourself from this type of case law.
For years now, the feminist/socialist paradises of England and Canada have been making sperm donors (including those who donated 'anonymously' at sperm banks) pay "child support" when the 'parents' split up and the female 'parent' needed a new source of income. And both countries have seen the result of those policies: a complete lack of sperm donors -- to the point where appeals for sperm donations have sunk to using shaming language in attempts to goad men into becoming donors (and future cash cows, most likely).
This is undoubtedly just the first move by the government to start doing the same thing here; it's been tried before (i.e., trying to discover the identity of an anonymous sperm bank donor so that he can be made to pay "child support"), and it's just a short judicial jump from making a private donor pay, to having sperm bank donors who donated under conditions of anonymity to have to do the same thing.
Any man who has previously donated sperm would be wise to contact the bank where he made his donation as soon as possible and have his sperm destroyed -- otherwise, he could very well find himself on the hook for at least eighteen years of "child support" payments. (Remember, the kids are 'his' ONLY when money is considered -- otherwise, the kids are HERS!)
This will set off a firestorm of consequences, many of which the feminists and socialists (as usual) have not bothered to consider. At the very least, it will be the death of the U.S. sperm bank industry and (just like the UK) the consequent end of the supply of donor sperm that infertile couples have depended on.
Ironically (and amusingly), it will also be the end of the same donor sperm that the single, thirty-ish, man-hating, feminist career woman ex-carousel riders with ‘baby rabies’ have ALSO depended on. (Can you say "schadenfreude"?)
Alternate headline:
Man faces terrible injustice; Lesbians hardest hit.
This will definitely end sperm donation in the U.S.
The law of unintended consequences.
Post a Comment