Exodus Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 LINK (CNN) -- A Kansas sperm donor caught in the middle of a child support case says he wanted to help a lesbian couple when he made the donation nearly five years ago. Instead, he may end up paying for his action. A judge ruled Thursday that William Marotta must pay child support, even though he says he signed documents waiving his parental rights. Shawnee County District Court Judge Mary Mattivi said Marotta failed to conform to Kansas law, which says a licensed physician must be involved in an artificial insemination process, court documents show. Discuss... I don't think its his responsibility to pay child support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farkas Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 those fucking cunts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs.cos Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 That's complete bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperhead Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 So if there was no doctor that performed an artificial insemination... how was it done? Either they banged, or they used a turkey baster, or ???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs.cos Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 The way the article reads he basically responded to the CL ad, showed up with three cups of sperm (holy shit that's a lot) signed papers and that was it. From what I am reading the couple is not doing this it's the state; also kansas doesn't allow abortion. So there is so much contradiction going on it's not funny. There is speculation this is happening to punish him for helping a "gay" couple and that this wouldn't have happened if he helped out a straight couple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Bastard Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 So many levels of fucked up here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig71188 Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 My first thought was this is BS. After reading the article, I still don't think he should have to pay, but I see the state's point. 1) If you can't support them, don't breed them - shame on the "couple" for having a child they can't support and want/take state money to have their family. 2) Without the law if the state goes after a "baby's daddy" to get them to pay for the child they helped bring into the world - what's to keep them and a sympathetic "baby momma" from saying "it was artificial insemination and I have some papers to prove it"? 3) As a taxpayer, I'm all for getting folks to be responsible for their actions. My take after thinking about it. Governments are hard up for cash (according to them - largely due to stupid spending, not because they don't collect enough taxes) and are making an example of this guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallard Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Had they actually gone to a sperm bank everything would be fine. But legally you are not covered if you respond to a Craigslist ad and spooge into a turkey baster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurkvinny Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 They probably couldn't afford a sperm bank and procedure. What a life that kid will have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cordell Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 So it seems to me that they couldn't afford to do it legally, got on Craigslist, did it anyway. Fuck these worthless people now going to the state for more money after having the kid. This poor guy tried to be nice and wasn't smart about it. So as far as I'm concerned fuck him too. People doing whatever shit they want and trying to make the rest of us pay for it piss me off. Complicated situation isn't easily fixed, but this is a should be a case of the government stepping back and saying you are all on your own. Don't want the kid to suffer put it up for adoption so someone who isn't a bottom dweller can afford the kid and raise it with some sense. /rant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 What bothers me is that the state is essentially SAYING they're targeting these people because they're stupid and made decisions outside the system. The reality is they're targeting them because they're gay. I agree the legal parents shouldn't get government assistance, but going after this guy is completely insane. There are plenty of other situations the state should be prosecuting before this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akula Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 The title here is not in fact the case. The point of this case is you aren't legally separated from child-rearing laws if you meet someone on CL and knock them up. If you go to a medical facility and follow the process that IS legal, you will end up fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 Lessons to be learned: Don't fuck with Lesbians unless they are hot Don't jerk in a cup for CL People Stay off CL Only provide sperm to a Lesbian in 2 of the 3 capable orifices but again, only if they are hot Only jerk in a cup after consulting a doctor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurkvinny Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 The reality is they're targeting them because they're gay. I don't agree with this. What facts in the story led you to this? The state is trying to get back monies paid out to the couple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImUrOBGYN Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 My first thought was this is BS. After reading the article, I still don't think he should have to pay, but I see the state's point. 1) If you can't support them, don't breed them - shame on the "couple" for having a child they can't support and want/take state money to have their family. 2) Without the law if the state goes after a "baby's daddy" to get them to pay for the child they helped bring into the world - what's to keep them and a sympathetic "baby momma" from saying "it was artificial insemination and I have some papers to prove it"? 3) As a taxpayer, I'm all for getting folks to be responsible for their actions. My take after thinking about it. Governments are hard up for cash (according to them - largely due to stupid spending, not because they don't collect enough taxes) and are making an example of this guy. I pretty much agree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.