Welcome, Guest

Author Topic: Any donors in the house? Look out!!!  (Read 1303 times)

Offline Jerrymac

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 6047
  • Gender: Male
Any donors in the house? Look out!!!
« on: May 31, 2005, 10:53:52 AM »
:rainbowflower:  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   :rainbowflower:

 :jerry:

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/

Offline Miss Chick-a-BEE

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 300
Any donors in the house? Look out!!!
« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2005, 03:13:13 PM »
That is all just so crazy. My husband and I saw this on the news, and had a big discussion about it. We both agree that the man should not be responsible for child support. I feel that the man who was married to her should pay. Some may say "well it's not really his kids". But that doesn't matter. He was married to her, so it was HIS family. That would be like saying that the "parents" of an adopted child, after a divorce, that niether parent would have to pay child support. Of course they are liable for child support. They took on the resposibility of raising that child. That's how it is for the man that was married to her. He took on the child as his own.
Biology doesn't make a parent. I feel that legally you are the parent through adoption or by a baby being born within the marraige (regardless if it's actually the man's biological child). Some of the situations that happen (such as pregnancy from adultery), really stink, but that's just where I think the law should lay. Then of course there are those that sleep together and have a baby..... but that's different than this invitro thing.

I know the idea of a man having to pay child support for a child conceived from adultery can really upset some people. But I'm not a supporter of divorce for one. If their was no such thing as divorce, then the man and woman would both have to support this child for the rest of it's childhood. Because they are a family, even though the child came about through a really wrong act. But if you go soley off biological reasons for support, then imagine this scene: child born from adultery, the couple stays married, and child support taken from the biological father. That would be stupid.

And in this particular case that's in the courts now...... why couldn't she get child support from the biological father before? While married? Because she WAS married! So the support lies on the husband and wife, right? Having NOTHING to do with biology.

Beth

Offline Kris^

  • Field Bee
  • ***
  • Posts: 560
Any donors in the house? Look out!!!
« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2005, 01:11:06 AM »
She couldn't get support from her ex-husband because the court had previously decided he wasn't the father -- they had been separated for two years prior to the in vitro fertilization (which was used because the mother had previously had a tubal ligation), and he filed for divorce the day of the procedure, and the decree was entered prior to the children's birth.    

There are also hints of racial overtones in that court opinion too.

-- Kris

Offline Miss Chick-a-BEE

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 300
Any donors in the house? Look out!!!
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2005, 09:07:39 AM »
Hmmm .. Well, all that would make sense as to why the ex isn't paying. But I thought I read that the ex's name was on the birth certificate. ?? You can't just name ANYONE can you?
Well.... I guess if she was only seperated, she could easily say it was her "husband's" child.

That woman sounds very WEIRD!!

Beth

Offline Jerrymac

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 6047
  • Gender: Male
Any donors in the house? Look out!!!
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2005, 09:46:52 AM »
:arrow:
:rainbowflower:  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   :rainbowflower:

 :jerry:

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/