A woman scorned...

spike said:
Hey Gonz, we won't stop you from voting. As long as it's for a Democrat. :laugh:

That wouldn't be stepping on your rights would it now?
Click to expand...

Bad analogy.

Using your premise, I could vote for a Republican or a Demoncrat but a Libertarian would be out of the question. The choice isn't being taken away. It was never an option.
 
Gonz said:
Using your premise, I could vote for a Republican or a Demoncrat but a Libertarian would be out of the question. The choice isn't being taken away. It was never an option.
Click to expand...

It should have been. The analogy wasn't about something being taken away.

But going with your analogy. Do you think justice would be served if you weren't allowed to vote Libertarian?

Or how about you could marry anyone you want as long as their your race?
 
Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye..the town cryer has spoken...loudly...unfortunately, the dissenting judge has cotton in his ears. If thats the best he can come up with, then he should be arguing to close down clinics that use sperm donors entirely. If you notice...the plaintiff in the case impregnated herself...

BTW...read some of the comments. Mom, and those of her ilk, is getting slammed.
 
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Click to expand...

Why did it make it past the Superior Court?

However, this case takes a nasty twist (now I know how it got past the Superior Court)
sperm donor Joel L. McKiernan and his lover Ivonne V. Ferguson
Click to expand...
IMcKiernan donating sperm that led to the birth of twins through in-vitro fertilization, Ferguson released him from any obligation toward offspring.
Click to expand...
she named her then-husband as 'father' on the birth certificate. Five years after the twins' birth and in the wake of divorce
Click to expand...

I have to disagree on this case. The premise that a sperm donor may make an anonoymous donation to an unknown recipient stands with no legal ramifications.
Donating to a known recipient is walking a very fine line.
Donating to your "Lover", especially when said sperm recipient is getting it donated in bed twice a week is called wifely duties. Marrying the woman who has your kid is husbandly duties. Not marrying her probably is too. Don't want kids?

GET FIXED!!
 
Gonz said:
Why did it make it past the Superior Court?

However, this case takes a nasty twist (now I know how it got past the Superior Court)




I have to disagree on this case. The premise that a sperm donor may make an anonoymous donation to an unknown recipient stands with no legal ramifications.
Donating to a known recipient is walking a very fine line.
Donating to your "Lover", especially when said sperm recipient is getting it donated in bed twice a week is called wifely duties. Marrying the woman who has your kid is husbandly duties. Not marrying her probably is too. Don't want kids?

GET FIXED!!
Click to expand...

At the time, she wasn't his 'lover'. They had broken off their relationship, she got married, stayed married for almost 5 years, divorces, and then goes after the known 'donor'. My guess is that her ex-husband did not have to pay for support because he wasn't the biological father, even though he was on the birth certificate. Since her lawyer couldn't get any money for support from him, she turned over on her donor...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top