T Nation

We Are Her Babies' Daddies

[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Because a wacko wanted it and an idiot physician was willing to perform it. Government intervention is not the answer. I don’t want the government to be the one setting standards over who can undergo this procedure. Where is that going to lead?

Where’s it going to lead? A background check before doing a procedure implanting some woman with embryos created with the help of some sperm donor. Regulations, etc. Do folks just walk in and adopt a child? At least, this needs to be as tightly regulated as adoption. I’m not sure that it isn’t. It very well might be. Perhaps all that needs to happen is that this one doctor is stripped of his credentials.

[/quote]

Do you want to have a background check before you’re allowed to father a child?

Maybe we can just have the government sterilize everyone who they think would make unfit parents.

This is a single situation which is highly unlikely to be repeated on a regular basis. This doctor should be shamed by his community and, hopefully, this negative publicity will have a negative impact on his practice. He should be investigated to see if he broke laws. But I highly disagree with making legislative decision based on one occurrence.

[quote]Christine wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Christine wrote:
Well, once the embryos were created, her choice was to have the kids or to not use the embryos.

I would think that many of the regular posters here would be happy to help support her choice.

I think a few of us are wondering why it even got the point of having embryos ready for a welfare case with 6 kids.

Yes. But the embryos were created, for good or bad.

I would think most of you would support the decision to have the children.[/quote]

I am against embryo farming.

Simple solution, cut off the funding. Things will just work themselves out after that.

[quote]Christine wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Because a wacko wanted it and an idiot physician was willing to perform it. Government intervention is not the answer. I don’t want the government to be the one setting standards over who can undergo this procedure. Where is that going to lead?

Where’s it going to lead? A background check before doing a procedure implanting some woman with embryos created with the help of some sperm donor. Regulations, etc. Do folks just walk in and adopt a child? At least, this needs to be as tightly regulated as adoption. I’m not sure that it isn’t. It very well might be. Perhaps all that needs to happen is that this one doctor is stripped of his credentials.

Do you want to have a background check before you’re allowed to father a child?

Maybe we can just have the government sterilize everyone who they think would make unfit parents.

This is a single situation which is highly unlikely to be repeated on a regular basis. This doctor should be shamed by his community and, hopefully, this negative publicity will have a negative impact on his practice. He should be investigated to see if he broke laws. But I highly disagree with making legislative decision based on one occurrence.
[/quote]

I’m not seeking professional help in having multiple embryos implanted in me.

And, surely the doctor and sperm donor must now pay child support to the woman they got pregnant?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
By the way, why isn’t the sperm donor… paying for her children?
[/quote]

Do you mean in just this case? Or do you feel all sperm donors should pay child support?

[quote]malonetd wrote:
Sloth wrote:
By the way, why isn’t the sperm donor… paying for her children?

Do you mean in just this case? Or do you feel all sperm donors should pay child support?[/quote]

I’m not expert in these matters, but doesn’t the state go looking for the one night stand to pay child support when a single mother applies for certain entitlements? The law at least should resemble that. If an unintentional pregnancy can warrant child support, deliberately impregnating a woman should.

Heck, in this case we have clear cut intent to get this woman pregnant.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Sloth wrote:
By the way, why isn’t the sperm donor… paying for her children?

Do you mean in just this case? Or do you feel all sperm donors should pay child support?

I’m not expert in these matters, but doesn’t the state go looking for the one night stand to pay child support when a single mother applies for certain entitlements? The law at least should resemble that. If an unintentional pregnancy can warrant child support, deliberately impregnating a woman should.

Heck, in this case we have clear cut intent to get this woman pregnant.[/quote]

So, all sperm donors should be required to pay child support?

In this case, it was her boyfriend who donated the sperm for all the children (so say the reports).

Yes, I think he should be responsible.

But in a case of an anonymous donor, no, I think that they should not be responsible.

[quote]Christine wrote:
In this case, it was her boyfriend who donated the sperm for all the children (so say the reports).

Yes, I think he should be responsible.

But in a case of an anonymous donor, no, I think that they should not be responsible.
[/quote]

Thanks, I’m not familiar with the details of this particular case.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Heck, in this case we have clear cut intent to get this woman pregnant.[/quote]

All men who donate sperm do so with a clear cut intent to get a woman pregnant.

[quote]malonetd wrote:
Sloth wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Sloth wrote:
By the way, why isn’t the sperm donor… paying for her children?

Do you mean in just this case? Or do you feel all sperm donors should pay child support?

I’m not expert in these matters, but doesn’t the state go looking for the one night stand to pay child support when a single mother applies for certain entitlements? The law at least should resemble that. If an unintentional pregnancy can warrant child support, deliberately impregnating a woman should.

Heck, in this case we have clear cut intent to get this woman pregnant.

So, all sperm donors should be required to pay child support?[/quote]

Yes. But, tell me your thoughts. However, include all sperm donors in your condsideration, please. Including those who unintentionally impregnate a woman the old fashioned way.

And, I’d ask if all non-sperm donors in her pregnancy are equally clear of paying “child support” through government entitlement programs.

If everyone who didn’t even donate sperm (the uninvolved taxpayer) must now share the burden of child support, certainly the intentional sperm donor must pay a much higher share of the cost.

[quote]Christine wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Heck, in this case we have clear cut intent to get this woman pregnant.

All men who donate sperm do so with a clear cut intent to get a woman pregnant.[/quote]

True. And serves to strengthen my opinion they should be liable for child support payments. At least, in cases where the mother then turns around and seeks social support from those who weren’t even involved.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Sloth wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Sloth wrote:
By the way, why isn’t the sperm donor… paying for her children?

Do you mean in just this case? Or do you feel all sperm donors should pay child support?

I’m not expert in these matters, but doesn’t the state go looking for the one night stand to pay child support when a single mother applies for certain entitlements? The law at least should resemble that. If an unintentional pregnancy can warrant child support, deliberately impregnating a woman should.

Heck, in this case we have clear cut intent to get this woman pregnant.

So, all sperm donors should be required to pay child support?

Yes. But, tell me your thoughts. However, include all sperm donors in your condsideration, please. Including those who unintentionally impregnate a woman the old fashioned way.

And, I’d ask if all non-sperm donors in her pregnancy are equally clear of paying “child support” through government entitlement programs.

If everyone who didn’t even donate sperm (the uninvolved taxpayer) must now share the burden of child support, certainly the intentional sperm donor must pay a much higher share of the cost.[/quote]

So then this surely goes for adoptions, too? Even after a child is successfully adopted, the biological father – and now the biological mother, too – continue to pay support to the child.

Is this correct, or am I missing something here?

[quote]malonetd wrote:

So then this surely goes for adoptions, too? Even after a child is successfully adopted, the biological father – and now the biological mother, too – continue to pay support to the child.

Is this correct, or am I missing something here?[/quote]

No. We shouldn’t be adopting children out into such situations. If adoptive parents show up asking for state support, the adoption process should certainly be reviewed, and the agency or entity responsible for approval could be held liable for support (through fines and judgement) to care for the children in question. Repeated incidents should result in the loss of whatever license they are required to hold.

But, I’m keenly interested in your answers. How does the government hold the uninvolved taxpayer, or even the unintentional biological father (the old fashioned way) liable for support? Yet, not the facility, the doctor, and the donor directly involved in intentionally getting a woman pregnant? That does not compute.

I can see arguing that the donor might not be liable if he signs a contract with the facility/doctor that they now accept full responsibility. They probably have a bigger pool of money to pay for their children anyways.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
malonetd wrote:

So then this surely goes for adoptions, too? Even after a child is successfully adopted, the biological father – and now the biological mother, too – continue to pay support to the child.

Is this correct, or am I missing something here?

No. We shouldn’t be adopting children out into such situations. If adoptive parents show up asking for state support, the adoption process should certainly be reviewed, and the agency or entity responsible for approval could be held liable for support (through fines and judgement) to care for the children in question. Repeated incidents should result in the loss of whatever license they are required to hold.

But, I’m keenly interested in your answers. How does the government hold the uninvolved taxpayer, or even the untentional biological father liable for support, but not the facility, the doctor, and the donor directly involved in intentionally getting a woman pregnant? That does not compute.

I can see arguing that the donor might not be liable if he signs a contract with the facility/doctor that they now accept full responsibility. They probably have a bigger pool of money to pay for their children anyways.
[/quote]

You kinda lost me here. I think we’re discussing two different things.

How is adoption all that different than sperm donation? Keep in mind, I’m not talking about this particular case. If biological parents of a successfully adopted child don’t have to pay support, why should a sperm donor?

I think you may be reading too much into my question. It’s not meant to be a loaded question. I was just trying to understand what you said earlier. I just wanted to know if you felt all sperm donors should be responsible for support or just in this case.

Johnny Semen donates his sperm to a sperm bank. Susie Ovary is a successful, married woman. Her husband is infertile. They want to experience pregnancy so she goes to a sperm bank and gets impregnated by Mr. Semen’s sperm. The child is born into a stable, loving family. Do you feel Johnny should be required to pay child support?

[quote]malonetd wrote:
Sloth wrote:
You kinda lost me here. I think we’re discussing two different things.

How is adoption all that different than sperm donation? Keep in mind, I’m not talking about this particular case. If biological parents of a successfully adopted child don’t have to pay support, why should a sperm donor?

I think you may be reading too much into my question. It’s not meant to be a loaded question. I was just trying to understand what you said earlier. I just wanted to know if you felt all sperm donors should be responsible for support or just in this case.

Johnny Semen donates his sperm to a sperm bank. Susie Ovary is a successful, married woman. Her husband is infertile. They want to experience pregnancy so she goes to a sperm bank and gets impregnated by Mr. Semen’s sperm. The child is born into a stable, loving family. Do you feel Johnny should be required to pay child support?[/quote]

It depends on of whether anyone but Mr. and Mrs. Ovary is responsible for their personal decisions (i.e. the consequences). If one is prone to saying Joe Taxpayer (the forgotten party wondering how he’s been made responsible) can pay support, is not Johnny Semen and Doc Impregnator even more culpable? It was not Joe Taxpayer who decided that his semen could be used to impregnate Mrs. Ovary. Nor, did Joe Taxpayer perform a calculated procedure to knock her up.

So I guess the question is, if a personal decision is to be made, can anyone but the directly and deliberately involved been turned to for support?

What is this mythical personal decision, that only recognizes personal freedom, but unloads personal responsibility on an society uninvolved in the action. And let’s not forget, while leaving the deliberate actors, who took calculated steps, free of direct responsibility?

Oh yes, I do think California should be looking into bringing this facility, doctor, and donor into court for child support.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Sloth wrote:
You kinda lost me here. I think we’re discussing two different things.

How is adoption all that different than sperm donation? Keep in mind, I’m not talking about this particular case. If biological parents of a successfully adopted child don’t have to pay support, why should a sperm donor?

I think you may be reading too much into my question. It’s not meant to be a loaded question. I was just trying to understand what you said earlier. I just wanted to know if you felt all sperm donors should be responsible for support or just in this case.

Johnny Semen donates his sperm to a sperm bank. Susie Ovary is a successful, married woman. Her husband is infertile. They want to experience pregnancy so she goes to a sperm bank and gets impregnated by Mr. Semen’s sperm. The child is born into a stable, loving family. Do you feel Johnny should be required to pay child support?

It depends on of whether anyone but Mr. and Mrs. Ovary is responsible for their personal decisions (i.e. the consequences). If one is prone to saying Joe Taxpayer (the forgotten party wondering how he’s been made responsible) can pay support, is not Johnny Semen and Doc Impregnator even more culpable?

It was not Joe Taxpayer who decided that his semen could be used to impregnate Mrs. Ovary. Nor, did Joe Taxpayer perform a calculated procedure to knock her up.

So I guess the question is, if a personal decision is to be made, can anyone but the directly and deliberately involved been turned to for support?

What is this mythical personal decision, that only recognizes personal freedom, but unloads personal responsibility on an society uninvolved in the action. And let’s not forget, while leaving the deliberate actors, who took calculated steps, free of direct responsibility?

Oh yes, I do think California should be looking into bringing this facility, doctor, and donor into court for child support.

[/quote]

So, you were only talking about this situation and others that may resemble it. Thanks.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Anyone else been watching this story? Is there not some kind of background check before having this procedure done? This is just nuts.

"A big share of the financial burden of raising Nadya Suleman’s 14 children could fall on the shoulders of California’s taxpayers, compounding the public furor in a state already billions of dollars in the red.

Even before the 33-year-old single, unemployed mother gave birth to octuplets last month, she had been caring for her six other children with the help of $490 a month in food stamps, plus Social Security disability payments for three of the youngsters. The public aid will almost certainly be increased with the new additions to her family.

Also, the hospital where the octuplets are expected to spend seven to 12 weeks has requested reimbursement from Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, for care of the premature babies, according to the Los Angeles Times. The cost has not been disclosed…"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090211/ap_on_re_us/octuplets
[/quote]

Lady’s retarted. Within the same short clip of the interview she states she’s completely capable of taking care of all of her kids by herself… Then she turns around and says she’ll be able to do it with the help of her mother and CHURCH VOLUNTEERS!!

The doctor is a fraud who should be stripped of his medical license. She should be forced to abort and be spayed and neutered. As a bonus, when we ship all of the illegal immigrants out of the country, we should throw her in with them too as kind of interest. Goddamn this kind of shit pisses me off.

[quote]utHAUS wrote:
Lady’s retarted. Within the same short clip of the interview she states she’s completely capable of taking care of all of her kids by herself… Then she turns around and says she’ll be able to do it with the help of her mother and CHURCH VOLUNTEERS!! [/quote]

That’s because a large number of people who follow that religion are severely mentally deficient.