No good deed goes unpunished.

Here a guy gives a couple of gals a hand and look what happens...

jim, cmon. you are working with two different sets of assumptions. "this guy" agreed to help the couple in the first place. The couple supports his case.

i think this guy ought to fight this all the way to the supreme court....another way for homo's to stick it to straight people. makes me sick

but the story doesn't read like that. it's all about the sperm donor getting hit with paying child support. then it's about the couple splitting and in the follow on article discusses the adopting of 7 children over a 7 year period culminating in deciding to have the las 8th child which is what the State's case is about. that completely equals drama. I still do not agree that lesbians raising children(your bias is showing :))=drama to average people. however, I have not looked at any US wide polls on this. I'll go try to find one to test your point.

I was not talking about why YOU posted it here. I was talking about why the article was written in the first place.

It's not about what you see. It's about what the average person sees, and they do see lesbian couple attempting to raise a child = drama.

the philosophy of law is different from how will a court decide in a disagreement. else, we'd look at the interpersonal drama on the street instead of a court room. I never disagreed that interpersonal drama motivates readers. I do not see that a lesbian couple =interpersonal drama.
I do agree that this story might draw polarizing opinions, which is why it makes news. "I think the state should go after the donor!" "I don't think so-there was a contract giving up his rights!" and you'll see that debate right here in the post.

I already agreed that the article was full of train wreck scenarios. I do NOT agree that the ONLY reason it made news was because a gay couple was involved in the story. and it did not matter to me in posting whether the couple was gay or not. everything else about their choices and decisions outlined in the article with their own quotes and freely offered up pictures and yes sperm donor from Craigslist (although I will argue the State doesn't get to define the terms of the contract) was hard to pass up reading it in the first place.

No. I can't agree to that. The average reader doesn't care about "rights" when looking at news stories. That's why the networks and shows you mention focus on interpersonal drama, not the philosophy of law.

ok, I now see what you're saying. but I disagree that parental rights are not part of what is interesting about the story and that parental rights challenges in court make news all the time which was illustrated in the story above. can we agree both may play a role? after all, there is a whole network devoted to court cases, and popular shows on tv revolving around contractual issues.

That and the couple is gay. Both pieces of information are in the headline of the actual article!

Sorry I gotta jump in here..... the story is... SOMEONE GOT SPERM OFF OF CRAIGSLIST!. SOMEONE DONATED SPERM...VIA CRAIGSLIST. It's ridiculous. THAT'S why it's getting attention.

It made the news because of the interpersonal issue, not the contractual issue. That is my point. I can't state it more clearly.

well I guess I'm glad that you don't see me as average. :) But look at the title of my post. I start with the state forcing someone to do something. and you're right, the avg reader doesn't really care about contracts of this nature, but alot of them know people who have used a sperm donor or artificial insemination or carry donor. and they might wonder, hey, does this ever go wrong? or, hey this went wrong. why-either seriously interested or just being voyeur. also some people feel a satisfaction over the idea that these people tempted fate-and it didn't end well. I would like to think there's not many of the last type, but I'm afraid it might be average.

I agree with you. It's improper induction to say "I was treated poorly, therefore all women are evil and there is a war against men." There are a lot of messed up people of both genders. You have to really watch your back or you're going to get hurt.

I'm kind of laughing that we don't get each other's point. "that makes it completely different than an independent sperm donor" and I'll add here lesbians.
That is exactly my point. by your logic, who cares about this estranged couple's legal issues with artificial insemination? That's not "news" like it happening to a gay couple. and my point is, it made the news, there's no big gay drama, ONLY a dispute over parental rights where artificial insemination played a role. to restate, sperm donor/artificial insemination/carry donor and conflicts tend to make the news.

The average reader doesn't care about contracts and the State. No one reads an article about gays and thinks "wow, the State is overstepping its bounds."

Because they were once married.

"Without getting salacious, there are several ways a welfare queen can get ahold of some semen and impregnate herself without the man's knowledge."
Please explain this sentence then (unbutchered).

I have also told my sons that girls will lie through their teeth. They aren't angels.

You sounded very "blame-throwing" yourself....which is why I responded how I did... It takes 2...always has...always will (minus the confiscated sperm maneuvers...donors etc...which still takes 2 if you boil it down.)
Stop thanking me in advance. It's pushy...and a little condescending...and not very grown up like when were discussing important issues of the day.

I never said anything about getting hold of a man's semen without his knowledge. You left out half of that sentence.

Yes, I've heard of condoms and vascectomies. DUH. Shouldn't be necessary in marriage now, should they? There's this little thing called TRUST... as in, trusting your spouse to be truthful with you...

And a vasectomy only makes sense if you're all done having kids. We were not; the agreement was that we would wait until the health insurance kicked in.

And these are MY exact words to MY sons: Boys, women LIE. They will LIE through their teeth to you.

The rest of your post is nothing but a blame-throwing shame-fest. Please, can we just act like grownups around here when the subject comes around to sex?

Thanks in advance...

Oh...that was a lot longer than I intended... (...that's what he said.).... sorry... I couldn't resist...I was on a roll there.

So, you're saying it is possible to get a hold of a man's semen without his knowledge... I've been mulling this over for 15 minutes and I can not think of how I could do that without him knowing I had some of his semen. I think this theory is paranoid and far fetched.
Have you ever heard of condoms? Or a vasectomy?? I mean, if you really don't wanna make a baby, but you really wanna have sex then maybe a vasectomy (heck, AND a condom, just for extra measure, if you will) might be the best route to guarantee that that wicked welfare queen doesn't get a bun in her oven (wittle baby widget). (btw...have you screwed welfare queens??? If so...that's a pretty large red flag a wavin' there with words in big bold letters yelling, "KNOCK ME UP, SUCKA!")
My point is this...and these are my exact words to my sons, "in this day and age, with all of the contraceptive devices on the market, you have to be a fucking moron to get a girl pregnant". (It didn't do any good, as it turns out, but hey, I said it at least.) Let's face it...men...some men (maybe most..I don't know I'm not one) lack reason when so much of their brain blood is...else where...BUT that does not remove your responsibility in the making of a baby, as a woman (welfare queen or not) can NOT get pregnant without your conscious contribution (meaning you have to be awake for this ...exchange to occur.)...Unless she's an MD who specializes in vasectomies and puts you under to...tie the knot...and steals a little gift while she's at it.... cuz THAT scenario happens ALL THE TIME. Right?
Sounds like you've had a few kids...that magically appeared without your INput. After what number kid did you learn the lesson of keeping it in your pants...or in a raincoat at least??
If you make a baby, (excluding the stolen semen tactic) then you have a monetary obligation....like it or not. If you fall for the oldest trick in the book "I'm on the pill" ...that makes you stupid, on top of being horny, but not any less responsible for the cost to raise it. (Other wise I, we, other people have to pay for your kid(s)...and we definitely had NO part of it.) Take some blame for your actions. The gulch is all about self responsibility.... have a dose.

Oh, gawd, let me count the ways...

Let's start with the ones that have happened to ME:

"Oh, we don't need to use protection. I'm sterile..."

And the ex who palmed her birth control pills at a time when we couldn't afford another baby... because she wanted a baby and wanted it NOW dammit and to Hell with the health insurance waiting period on my new job!

There's the case in California where some woman named a soldier deployed in Iraq as the father. He couldn't contest the paternity -- he never even HEARD about it -- until he returned. Too late under California law. AFAIK he's still paying for a baby that isn't his.

Without getting salacious, there are several ways a welfare queen can get ahold of some semen and impregnate herself without the man's knowledge.

Enough?

then why was that story news?

How does a "woman conceive through fraud" ?