Be very careful in donating sperm

[Robert A Whit]

http://news.yahoo.com/child-support-claim-rankles-sperm-donor-lesbian-couple-014725388.html
<o:p></o:p>
KANSAS CITY, Kansas (Reuters) - A Kansas man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple so they could have a child said on Wednesday he is shocked the state is now trying to make him pay child support.
William Marotta, 46, donated sperm to Jennifer Schreiner and Angela Bauer under a written agreement that he would not be considered the father of the child nor liable for child support. A daughter, now 3, was born to Schreiner.
But in October, the state of Kansas filed a petition seeking to have Marotta declared the father of the child and financially responsible for her after the couple encountered money difficulties.
Marotta will ask the court in a hearing January 8 to dismiss the claim, which centers on a state law that the sperm must be donated through a licensed physician in order for the father to be free of any later financial obligations. Marotta gave a container of semen to the couple, who found him on Craigslist, instead of donating through a doctor or clinic.
The case is seen as having repercussions for other sperm donors. Sperm banks routinely provide sperm to people who want to conceive a child on the understanding that the donors are not responsible for the children.
Kansas is seeking child support from Marotta, including about $6,000 in medical expenses related to the child's birth, according to its petition.
"This was totally unexpected," Marotta said in a phone interview. "The very first thing that went through my mind was that no good deed goes unpunished."
The case has attracted national attention. Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said Wednesday "it is unfortunate and unfair" that Kansas is seeking money from a sperm donor.
"It certainly might have a negative effect on other men's willingness to help couples who need a donor, which would be harmful to everyone," Minter said.
"I also think it undermines everyone's respect for the law when you see it operate so arbitrarily."
Kansas officials are required under the law to determine the father of a child when someone seeks state benefits, said Angela de Rocha, spokeswoman for the Department for Children and Families. The couple was compelled to provide that information, which led to investigation of the sperm donation.
Marotta should be declared the father and subject to financial claims because he donated the sperm directly to the women and not through a physician, as required by Kansas law, the state's petition states.
Marotta said he's had virtually no contact with the child, but that he and Schreiner have remained cordial. He said she was pressured by the state to provide his name as the sperm donor.
"To me, ethics need to override rules," he said.
Lawyers for Marotta argue that he had no parental rights because of his agreement with the couple and cannot be held financially responsible.
They cite a 2007 case in which the Kansas Supreme Court ruled against a sperm donor seeking parental rights because he did not have any such agreement with the mother, lawyers for Marotta said.
"So now, we are flipping the argument around," Marotta attorney Ben Swinnen said Wednesday.
If the father had no legal parental rights in the 2007 case, Marotta should be declared to have no parental obligations in the current case, Swinnen said.
Marotta, a race car mechanic, responded to an ad on Craigslist from someone offering to pay $50 for sperm donations, but he made the donation for free. Marotta said he and his wife have no children of their own but have fostered a daughter. Marotta said he was simply trying to help a couple wanting a child.
(Editing by James B. Kelleher and Lisa Shumaker)
<SCRIPT>var t_art_body = new Date().getTime();</SCRIPT>

[avatar4321]

Should be careful with donating something like sperm anyway.

[cadet]

donated sperm to Jennifer Schreiner and Angela Bauerunder a written agreement that he would not be considered the father of the child nor liable for child support.

I thought when you signed something, it was as good as done. And is upheld in court. Kind of the same as giving your word, or swearing an oath, but legally binding.
The case should be written off soon. It won't go anywhere.

[Robert A Whit]

I thought when you signed something, it was as good as done. And is upheld in court. Kind of the same as giving your word, or swearing an oath, but legally binding.
The case should be written off soon. It won't go anywhere.

Contracts to be valid must obey the written law.

That is the basis for the legal problems in this case.

KS alleges that the parties broke the law. Ergo one can't contract to do an illegal act.

I don't know who will win. My heart is with the donor. But the State has plenty of lawyers and pays the judges.

A good case of an illegal contract would be you hire a person to rob the bank. They don't do it so you sue them in court. No court will allow such a contract to stand and will think the person doing the sueing is crazy.

[Thunderknuckles]

I thought when you signed something, it was as good as done. And is upheld in court. Kind of the same as giving your word, or swearing an oath, but legally binding.
The case should be written off soon. It won't go anywhere.
I don't think it will written off. We've seen previous cases where the child's well being trumps any contract. What I draw from this is that men should not, under any circumstances, donate sperm if they do not wish to be regarded as the legal father because you will be on the hook for any human being that results should all else fail.

[avatar4321]

I thought when you signed something, it was as good as done. And is upheld in court. Kind of the same as giving your word, or swearing an oath, but legally binding.
The case should be written off soon. It won't go anywhere.

Just because an agreement is written down, doesn't make it a valid contract. I doubt it would be a valid contract in court, because despite not knowing all the terms of the agreement, it doesn't sound like there was any consideration exchanged. I could be wrong. Even so, the state has the right to void contracts that are against public policy. Sounds like this agreement is one of agreements contrary to public policy.

[avatar4321]

I don't think it will written off. We've seen previous cases where the child's well being trumps any contract. What I draw from this is that men should not, under any circumstances, donate sperm if they do not wish to be regarded as the legal father because you will be on the hook for any human being that results should all else fail.

Considering an agreement not to be held responsible for any children doesn't actually change the fact that the man is the child's father, perhaps the public policy voiding his agreement isn't necessarily a bad one, per se. Though I think it's pretty darn messed up to promise a guy he doesnt have any responsibilities toward the child if he donates the sperm and then turn around and sue him.

Children need their father. Men shouldn't be carelessly creating children they have no intention of taking care of.

[mundame]

I thought when you signed something, it was as good as done. And is upheld in court. Kind of the same as giving your word, or swearing an oath, but legally binding.
The case should be written off soon. It won't go anywhere.


The contract was with the two women, but this is not the problem: it's the State that has to pay for the child now that they've bugged out, so the State goes after the real (and solvent) parent.

I think the State has a good case here. People have volunteered to create new persons all over the country by donating sperm. When people do that in more hands-on situations, let's say, they are held responsible by the State for the offspring. I don't see why they shouldn't be in the sperm donor cases!


This is yet one more anti-natalist policy change; so many social changes lately have been in the direction of lessening population. I think it's an instinctive general move to lessen the gross overpopulation of humans on the planet.

Or maybe I should shorten my sights: maybe it's a sign of an unhealthy nation that expects revolution and big trouble. I was just reading that shortly before the Revolution the French government became very concerned that France was depopulating.

[taft2012]

Procreating with one female, in a normal direct deposit manner, is sufficient enough to expose oneself to the traditional laundry list of female-related psychoses.

Donating sperm, through a third party, to a pair of lesbian man-haters is simply asking for trouble.

[mundame]

Yuck.

Talk about misogynist.

[Marcus Aurelius]

should this case be upheld, and the donor liable for support, I would think that is the end of any sperm banks in that state.

[fj1200]

I thought when you signed something, it was as good as done. And is upheld in court. Kind of the same as giving your word, or swearing an oath, but legally binding.


Just because an agreement is written down, doesn't make it a valid contract. I doubt it would be a valid contract in court, because despite not knowing all the terms of the agreement, it doesn't sound like there was any consideration exchanged. I could be wrong. Even so, the state has the right to void contracts that are against public policy. Sounds like this agreement is one of agreements contrary to public policy.

The state was not party to the contract to right off its rights/obligations to the child and the parties involved did not follow the law that would have eliminated the state's interest/obligation.


... to a pair of lesbian man-haters is simply asking for trouble.

Umm, as far as I read those "man-haters" were supporting the man's efforts.


should this case be upheld, and the donor liable for support, I would think that is the end of any sperm banks in that state.

Assuming that they have a licensed physician on staff, they would be safe under state law.


http://news.yahoo.com/child-support-claim-rankles-sperm-donor-lesbian-couple-014725388.html
...
Marotta will ask the court in a hearing January 8 to dismiss the claim, which centers on a state law that the sperm must be donated through a licensed physician in order for the father to be free of any later financial obligations. Marotta gave a container of semen to the couple, who found him on Craigslist, instead of donating through a doctor or clinic.
The case is seen as having repercussions for other sperm donors. Sperm banks routinely provide sperm to people who want to conceive a child on the understanding that the donors are not responsible for the children.

They were all ignorant of the law.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=604096#post604096)

should this case be upheld, and the donor liable for support, I would think that is the end of any sperm banks in that state.



Assuming that they have a licensed physician on staff, they would be safe under state law.



What does having or not having a licensed physician on staff have to do with the possible financial responsibility of the sperm donor for the conceived child?

You apparently missed my point. If the state holds a sperm donor financially responsible for a conceived child, and it's upheld in court, sperm banks will see a significant drop in donations, as the donors will not want to be financially liable for support... that would end sperm banks in the state. The staffing at said sperm banks is immaterial.

[fj1200]

What does having or not having a licensed physician on staff have to do with the possible financial responsibility of the sperm donor for the conceived child?

Did you read the part about the laws of the state?


You apparently missed my point. If the state holds a sperm donor financially responsible for a conceived child, and it's upheld in court, sperm banks will see a significant drop in donations, as the donors will not want to be financially liable for support... that would end sperm banks in the state. The staffing at said sperm banks is immaterial.

I didn't miss your point, it seemed to be ignorant of the law.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=604112#post604112)
You apparently missed my point. If the state holds a sperm donor financially responsible for a conceived child, and it's upheld in court, sperm banks will see a significant drop in donations, as the donors will not want to be financially liable for support... that would end sperm banks in the state. The staffing at said sperm banks is immaterial.



I didn't miss your point, it seemed to be ignorant of the law.

The law is immaterial to my point. Regardless of what the law says, if potential sperm donors sees a case where a donor is held financially liable for a conceived child, they are not going to painstakingly research the case to see if the details apply to them as well. They will simply not donate to avoid even the remote possibility they would be liable financially. THAT, would shut down sperm banks in the state.

[fj1200]

The law is immaterial to my point. Regardless of what the law says, if potential sperm donors sees a case where a donor is held financially liable for a conceived child, they are not going to painstakingly research the case to see if the details apply to them as well. They will simply not donate to avoid even the remote possibility they would be liable financially. THAT, would shut down sperm banks in the state.

Balderdash. Do you really think that donor banks are in the business of exposing their "suppliers" to two decades of financial liability? The law is exactly the point because it already has built in protections.

[taft2012]

Yuck.

Talk about misogynist.

Lol..... Rush is right again. The liberal funny bone is permanently broken.

You're all well on your way to becoming those faceless government dependents that once ambled aimlessly through the grim streets of Moscow.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Balderdash. Do you really think that donor banks are in the business of exposing their "suppliers" to two decades of financial liability? The law is exactly the point because it already has built in protections.

you're really a little dense, aren't you...

The law is NOT the point. The PERCEPTION of this one case in the minds of potential donors could SCARE off said potential sperm donors, regardless of what the law actually says. Potential donors will see this case, if upheld, and think 'gee, I don't want to be liable, I'm not even going to bother looking into it'.

Is my point starting to sink in yet???

[fj1200]

you're really a little dense, aren't you...

The law is NOT the point. The PERCEPTION of this one case in the minds of potential donors could SCARE off said potential sperm donors, regardless of what the law actually says. Potential donors will see this case, if upheld, and think 'gee, I don't want to be liable, I'm not even going to bother looking into it'.

Is my point starting to sink in yet???

Back to your losing ways I see. You must think the people of Kansas stupid that they don't recognize the suit for what it is; Private parties attempted to get around the law to save a few bucks and are now being held liable.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Back to your losing ways I see. You must think the people of Kansas stupid that they don't recognize the suit for what it is; Private parties attempted to get around the law to save a few bucks and are now being held liable.

yup, your dense alright.

[fj1200]

yup, your dense alright.

I see I was correct.


Back to your losing ways I see.

I happen to think that the people of Kansas, and some of its various businesses, are able to discern the facts of the case especially when it comes to college kids wanting to get paid for their "product." You think they're stupid, not exactly a great position to hold.

[aboutime]

Balderdash. Do you really think that donor banks are in the business of exposing their "suppliers" to two decades of financial liability? The law is exactly the point because it already has built in protections.


fj. You mean....like that Journal newpaper/rag has done to gun owners in New York? We all know. If you have any connections to the Liberal, Democrat party, or Obama. LAWS DO NOT APPLY.
Why should they when the President of the United States Ignores the Laws, and the Constitution?

Those donor banks know...if they dare oppose the system, they will lose all of the promised OBAMA BUCKS they expected, just like the Abortion/Planned Parenthood Clinics.

If you still can't see that. You obviously have tried to buy that bridge in New York city for a DOLLAR.

[fj1200]

^WTF are you talking about? This has nothing to do with the Feds. :slap:

[aboutime]

^WTF are you talking about? This has nothing to do with the Feds. :slap:


Really? Where do you believe those Donor banks get their subsidies? If the Fed doesn't control them, monitor them, and pay them. They do not exist. That's WTF I'm talking about ahole.

[fj1200]

Really? Where do you believe those Donor banks get their subsidies? If the Fed doesn't control them, monitor them, and pay them. They do not exist. That's WTF I'm talking about ahole.

Please provide evidence of subsidized donor banks.

[aboutime]

please provide evidence of subsidized donor banks.


google it.

[fj1200]

google it.

It's your accusation. :)

[aboutime]

It's your accusation. :)


And your FINGERS can, and should DO THE WALKING. And it's not An Accusation.
GOOGLE it.

[fj1200]

And your FINGERS can, and should DO THE WALKING. And it's not An Accusation.
GOOGLE it.

Until you prove it, it is. :)

[aboutime]

Until you prove it, it is. :)


That's a familiar, often used Liberal excuse.

How bout this? Prove it Isn't!

[fj1200]

That's a familiar, often used Liberal excuse.

How bout this? Prove it Isn't!

:laugh: If I didn't know any better I'd say you are now using the well-documented methods that liberals employ to tarnish conservatives. :laugh: Please tell me you're not one of those. :poke:

[aboutime]

:laugh: If I didn't know any better I'd say you are now using the well-documented methods that liberals employ to tarnish conservatives. :laugh: Please tell me you're not one of those. :poke:


Why would I copy you, or the liberal techniques? And you do not know me enough to say anything about me. But you will anyway.

Enjoy. Your liberal techniques seem to satisfy you, so you think I want to use them too?

GOOGLE that!

[Robert A Whit]

I don't think it will written off. We've seen previous cases where the child's well being trumps any contract. What I draw from this is that men should not, under any circumstances, donate sperm if they do not wish to be regarded as the legal father because you will be on the hook for any human being that results should all else fail.

In his case, I think the court will hang him by his balls. Pardon the pun. Not because the ruling is correct, but because of the way they word state laws.

My brief in short would go something like this to the court.

The parties agreed on one thing. That party A, the man, would turn over to Party B, to be used or not used by Party B for her purposes and no other. To show intent, all parties agreed and held each other harmless.

At no point did Party A enter said contract for the purposes of rearing a child. The State has imposed duties on humans that should never be imposed, ergo, demanding they are forced to use said agreement for purposes outside the scope of the written agreement.

In short, the written law must be set aside out of respect for the parties to the contract.

I doubt a lower court will favor the man. But he can appeal it and at some point perhaps the Supreme court of the USA will overturn it unless the state Supreme court did so first.

[jimnyc]

How exactly did this man give his "deposit"? Was he with one of the gals, or did he work out an arrangement where it was taken from him? I mean, why would a total stranger go through a costly procedure for 2 total strangers? Methinks they worked out a deal and Sir Dumbass was thinking with his little head, no? I'd have to read the law on this, but he's a royal dumbass if he did what I think he did. The small contractual agreement can easily be tossed out if it doesn't fall in line with the state laws. I can legally see him being held responsible. I do think it's a bunch of shit though. He shouldn't have to fork over a dime, and I don't think the state should either. I don't think they are owed anything from anyone.

[Robert A Whit]

Just because an agreement is written down, doesn't make it a valid contract. I doubt it would be a valid contract in court, because despite not knowing all the terms of the agreement, it doesn't sound like there was any consideration exchanged. I could be wrong. Even so, the state has the right to void contracts that are against public policy. Sounds like this agreement is one of agreements contrary to public policy.

I agree that the state will prevail. I believe also that this case has deeper intrigues than just sperm or the child.

We know that as a people, the public can't possibly know all the laws. We could spend dozens of years and not know the laws. The government of both the USA and each state imposes a mind numbing number of laws annually.

It is one of my pet beefs.

But the deeper part that I think only a higher court can deal with, such as the state / Federal supreme courts, is that what is sperm? I mean per the law.

It is part of a human body.

Abortion laws are in part based on the baby and democrats are so proud as to allege the unborn baby is the woman's body. This is rubbish of course since it is living.

But sperm is not yet living in the sense it is a human being. Not even in formation. It is only part of the equation.

So, can a state law be created that tells a human what to do with their own body?

I believe taken to a supreme court, the law is not legal.

The child took the woman to finish creating. When she created the child, she knew the contract terms. Did she give consideration or did she get some? That depends on if you see only money as consideration. Courts do accept money but they also accept much more for consideration purposes.

This won't rise or fall on consideration as one poster suggests. It will rise or fall on what can a person do with their own body. That the woman in question lost a job is not the right way to look at cases like this. She can get a job. If not, I am sure she gets state support. That's what opened up this can of worms to begin with. The state wants to make him the butt of the joke and not her. She wanted the child to begin with. She in my view has full duty to the child.

[Robert A Whit]

How exactly did this man give his "deposit"? Was he with one of the gals, or did he work out an arrangement where it was taken from him? I mean, why would a total stranger go through a costly procedure for 2 total strangers? Methinks they worked out a deal and Sir Dumbass was thinking with his little head, no? I'd have to read the law on this, but he's a royal dumbass if he did what I think he did. The small contractual agreement can easily be tossed out if it doesn't fall in line with the state laws. I can legally see him being held responsible. I do think it's a bunch of shit though. He shouldn't have to fork over a dime, and I don't think the state should either. I don't think they are owed anything from anyone.

He did not donate the small head to either lesbian. The mother did not have sex with him.

State law says only if they did it via a state approved facility, no doubt filling out some state approved forms, he gets jacked off so to speak.

They allege since they did it privately and so on, he is the father for support purposes.

Since this is state law, I expect the state court will rule in favor of the state but in this case I think he should challenge it to the higest state courts and or the Supreme Court where I expect they will reverse a lower court ruling.

But who am I. I am just the guy that said the Fed Supreme court would reverse Obama care. And we know how that worked for me.

The two lesbians should never have a child that they can't figure out how to support. Easy to say but at times very difficult to see how they care for the child. But hell, that is life.

Suppose this man loses his job? We won't see a court saying, forget child support. No, they will haunt him for the life of the case.

[jimnyc]

He did not donate the small head to either lesbian. The mother did not have sex with him.

In that case, completely disregard my post. I will quietly exit feeling like a dumbass.

[Robert A Whit]

The state provides "exemptions" to the law about child support.

Since the state excepts men from paying support in the event they use a doctor, the state clearly agrees by passing their law to supporting the child of a woman not able to pay support in that case.

I believe this man should be included in that exception.

I think the state wins on the law, but the law gets tossed overboard by some higher court.

Oh I want to add this note.

The male has one or more attorneys that believe in his case. I suspect they believe as I do that they will need to win in some higher court.

[fj1200]

Why would I copy you, or the liberal techniques? And you do not know me enough to say anything about me. But you will anyway.

Enjoy. Your liberal techniques seem to satisfy you, so you think I want to use them too?

GOOGLE that!

I should google Harry Reid and his smearing of Romney regarding the release of his tax records. It was a smear by Reid and it's exactly what you tried to do; bring something up and then refuse to back your words. Eat that. :)

[Robert A Whit]

In that case, completely disregard my post. I will quietly exit feeling like a dumbass.

Nah, you are no dumbass. Bet you are glad you are not in the case though.

I don't know why the law can't understand that given the mother insisted on having the child, why she can't take care of the child. I know, she lost the job. But this law if enforced will still have effect when she goes back to work. A piss poor law to except some men but stick it to others.

[fj1200]

He shouldn't have to fork over a dime, and I don't think the state should either. I don't think they are owed anything from anyone.


This won't rise or fall on consideration as one poster suggests. It will rise or fall on what can a person do with their own body. That the woman in question lost a job is not the right way to look at cases like this. She can get a job. If not, I am sure she gets state support. That's what opened up this can of worms to begin with. The state wants to make him the butt of the joke and not her. She wanted the child to begin with. She in my view has full duty to the child.

It rises or falls based on the interest of the child. If the couple could have raised the child with no burden on the state then we never would have heard about this but they had to fall back on the state for welfare. At that point the state decided that the father should have burden for whom he helped bring into the world. The state just allows carve-outs in certain circumstances. As I said before, the parties were ignorant to the law.

[fj1200]

I don't know why the law can't understand that given the mother insisted on having the child, why she can't take care of the child. I know, she lost the job. But this law if enforced will still have effect when she goes back to work. A piss poor law to except some men but stick it to others.

There's nothing wrong with the law. Neither the welfare aspect that holds fathers responsible nor the donor exception.

[aboutime]

I should google Harry Reid and his smearing of Romney regarding the release of his tax records. It was a smear by Reid and it's exactly what you tried to do; bring something up and then refuse to back your words. Eat that. :)


I apologize. Didn't realize you weren't capable of using Google to find the exact answers you demanded I provide. Swallow that.

[Robert A Whit]

It rises or falls based on the interest of the child. If the couple could have raised the child with no burden on the state then we never would have heard about this but they had to fall back on the state for welfare. At that point the state decided that the father should have burden for whom he helped bring into the world. The state just allows carve-outs in certain circumstances. As I said before, the parties were ignorant to the law.

But this man agreed and so did the woman to hold him harmless.

Then one more problem. The state excludes men for that duty to the child in cases where a doctor was used. I do not believe that is a reasonable way to make law. He loses in the lower court, wins at the supreme court. It may even be at the state supreme court.

It is not his fault she lost the job.

Again, same thing only using an approved doctor, the man gets off scott free. And with no duty to the child.

A law like that is bullshit.

[Robert A Whit]

There's nothing wrong with the law. Neither the welfare aspect that holds fathers responsible nor the donor exception.

You saying that does not mean it is true. But you understand that.

The state excuses men. The principle of support for the child is tossed into the waste bucket.

Why show two men are not the equal to each other in that fashion?

This does not hinge on the act. It hinges on the no doctor clause. I think that is bullshit.

[fj1200]

I apologize. Didn't realize you weren't capable of using Google to find the exact answers you demanded I provide. Swallow that.

Oh brother, next time think twice about blathering your off topic rants rather than demand someone google irrelevant information. :)

[fj1200]

But this man agreed and so did the woman to hold him harmless.

Then one more problem. The state excludes men for that duty to the child in cases where a doctor was used. I do not believe that is a reasonable way to make law. He loses in the lower court, wins at the supreme court. It may even be at the state supreme court.

It is not his fault she lost the job.

Again, same thing only using an approved doctor, the man gets off scott free. And with no duty to the child.

A law like that is bullshit.

It's not an unreasonable law when couples want an alternate option of conception and the state needs to limit the liability of potential donors. Just because some were ignorant of the law does not mean the law was bad.


You saying that does not mean it is true. But you understand that.

The state excuses men. The principle of support for the child is tossed into the waste bucket.

Why show two men are not the equal to each other in that fashion?

This does not hinge on the act. It hinges on the no doctor clause. I think that is bullshit.

You may think it but the state has a compelling interest in the care of a child and when the egg and sperm donors create an agreement that is outside what the state defines as acceptable, they better be prepared for the consequences.

[Robert A Whit]

It's not an unreasonable law when couples want an alternate option of conception and the state needs to limit the liability of potential donors. Just because some were ignorant of the law does not mean the law was bad.



You may think it but the state has a compelling interest in the care of a child and when the egg and sperm donors create an agreement that is outside what the state defines as acceptable, they better be prepared for the consequences.

No disrespect man but you talk like you are a statist.

I am not. I don't buy that bull shit that the state has some compelling interest.

While I believe strongly in states rights, I believe even much more in the rights of individuals.

You know, crazy things that the founders believed and fought for and established this government about.

I conceded to you that the state wins in lower court but loses in the highest courts.

[fj1200]

No disrespect man but you talk like you are a statist.

I am not. I don't buy that bull shit that the state has some compelling interest.

While I believe strongly in states rights, I believe even much more in the rights of individuals.

You know, crazy things that the founders believed and fought for and established this government about.

I conceded to you that the state wins in lower court but loses in the highest courts.

You conceded to me huh? :laugh: And I'm a statist. :laugh: :laugh: It's clear that the state is going to protect children and this is an example.

[Robert A Whit]

You conceded to me huh? :laugh: And I'm a statist. :laugh: :laugh: It's clear that the state is going to protect children and this is an example.

I view a statist as a cut below a person who believes in liberty.

Yup, I conceded he would lose in the lower state court that tries the case. Can't you stand a win?

This is not protecting children. Were that argument to hold water, all children produced this way would have the same protection.

This state excludes from similar protection perhaps almost all other children so produced.

No, this man wins in upper courts. It is my opinion. I am certain some judges will see it your way yet others will see this my way.

I believe strongly in individual liberty.

[fj1200]

I view a statist as a cut below a person who believes in liberty.

Yup, I conceded he would lose in the lower state court that tries the case. Can't you stand a win?

This is not protecting children. Were that argument to hold water, all children produced this way would have the same protection.

This state excludes from similar protection perhaps almost all other children so produced.

No, this man wins in upper courts. It is my opinion. I am certain some judges will see it your way yet others will see this my way.

I believe strongly in individual liberty.

You could point out all my statist positions then. :rolleyes:

And for him to win in a higher court there would have to be something wrong with the law. Your opinion is not cutting IMO or has your research into all the states constitutions turned up something useful?

[Robert A Whit]

You could point out all my statist positions then. :rolleyes:

And for him to win in a higher court there would have to be something wrong with the law. Your opinion is not cutting IMO or has your research into all the states constitutions turned up something useful?

How about the one where you charge the state with a greater duty than the parents have?

I have repeated my assertions that there are flaws in the law. I also said some judges will not agree with me. I think at the level of a xupreme court, they will.

Want to shoot me for having an opinion?

[fj1200]

How about the one where you charge the state with a greater duty than the parents have?

I have repeated my assertions that there are flaws in the law. I also said some judges will not agree with me. I think at the level of a xupreme court, they will.

Want to shoot me for having an opinion?

Not for that. :poke: Your alleged flaw is not in the law itself but rather the message you purport that it sends; I disagree with that assessment. Also, where did I say the state had a "greater duty"?

[Missileman]

Not for that. :poke: Your alleged flaw is not in the law itself but rather the message you purport that it sends; I disagree with that assessment. Also, where did I say the state had a "greater duty"?

In this case, the state is attempting to get the parents to do their duty.

[Robert A Whit]

Not for that. :poke: Your alleged flaw is not in the law itself but rather the message you purport that it sends; I disagree with that assessment. Also, where did I say the state had a "greater duty"?

When you said the state had a compelling interest. I don't accept I have a flaw given my comments as to how judges rule in cases and also how the supreme court at both levels rules.

Anyway, no point in fox hunting when the dog got tired, if ya know what I mean.

[fj1200]

In this case, the state is attempting to get the parents to do their duty.

Very true.


When you said the state had a compelling interest. I don't accept I have a flaw given my comments as to how judges rule in cases and also how the supreme court at both levels rules.

Anyway, no point in fox hunting when the dog got tired, if ya know what I mean.

The state has an interest in the welfare of the child, forcing parents to fulfilled their obligation is not "statist." Your flaw IMO is that you think the law itself is unconstitutional according to the KS constitution, that's what it takes to overturn it.

[hjmick]

When I donate the sample is generally swall...
















Never mind... I can't believe I almost went there... ;)

[Robert A Whit]

Very true.



The state has an interest in the welfare of the child, forcing parents to fulfilled their obligation is not "statist." Your flaw IMO is that you think the law itself is unconstitutional according to the KS constitution, that's what it takes to overturn it.

You can't get it. Sigh.

[Robert A Whit]

I agree with the lawyers for the plaintiff.


Lawyers for Marotta argue that he had no parental rights because of his agreement with the couple and cannot be held financially responsible.
They cite a 2007 case in which the Kansas Supreme Court ruled against a sperm donor seeking parental rights because he did not have any such agreement with the mother, lawyers for Marotta said.
"So now, we are flipping the argument around," Marotta attorney Ben Swinnen said Wednesday.
If the father had no legal parental rights in the 2007 case, Marotta should be declared to have no parental obligations in the current case, Swinnen said.


Sigh, now do you get it?

[fj1200]

Sigh, now do you get it?

I get it. I've gotten it all along. I'll still get it tomorrow morning when I wake up. I think you, and they, are wrong. There's a different burden when the state is now on the hook for welfare payments and the donation was made outside of state-sponsored exemptions. Get it?

[Robert A Whit]

I get it. I've gotten it all along. I'll still get it tomorrow morning when I wake up. I think you, and they, are wrong. There's a different burden when the state is now on the hook for welfare payments and the donation was made outside of state-sponsored exemptions. Get it?

Perhaps you can tell your story to the lawyers representing the donor. Maybe they will listen to your story.

Apparently you don't understand what is going on. YET!

[fj1200]

:laugh: I'm out there baby.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8ve129a2dL0/TG2Gfnhem6I/AAAAAAAAAdE/fs1Sd22dB-Y/s1600/34160_417104234452_9023924452_4514719_3174528_n.jp g

[DragonStryk72]

Contracts to be valid must obey the written law.

That is the basis for the legal problems in this case.

KS alleges that the parties broke the law. Ergo one can't contract to do an illegal act.

I don't know who will win. My heart is with the donor. But the State has plenty of lawyers and pays the judges.

A good case of an illegal contract would be you hire a person to rob the bank. They don't do it so you sue them in court. No court will allow such a contract to stand and will think the person doing the sueing is crazy.

What gets me is that all parties involved in it aside from the government don't want this to go thru.

[fj1200]

What gets me is that all parties involved in it aside from the government don't want this to go thru.

Except that they are the ones now stuck with the bill. Just imagine if anyone could scribble down on a piece of paper that the "donation" was made as charity with all future obligations on a particular party now being null. That's horrible public policy.