u235

Synopsis: lesbians gets a jar of sperm from a guy and sign an agreement absolving him of any responsibility. Lesbians break up and Baby Mommy is short of money. So what does she do? She turns to the state and then the state goes after the sperm donor.

Ok, what went wrong?

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) -- A Kansas man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple after answering an online ad is fighting the state's efforts to suddenly force him to pay child support for the now 3-year-old girl, arguing that he and the women signed an agreement waiving all of his parental rights.[..]

Marotta, a 46-year-old Topeka resident, answered an online ad in 2009 from a local couple, Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner, who said they were seeking a sperm donor. After exchanging emails and meeting, the three signed an agreement relieving Marotta of any financial or paternal responsibility.[..]

Court records show that Marotta, Schreiner and Bauer signed an agreement in March 2009, with the women agreeing to "hold him harmless" financially. The agreement also said the child's birth certificate would not list a father.

But the state contends the agreement isn't valid because a doctor wasn't involved.

Under a 1994 Kansas law, a sperm donor isn't considered the father only when a donor provides sperm to a licensed physician for artificial insemination of a woman who isn't the donor's wife. The result is an incentive for donors and prospective mothers to work with a doctor, de Rocha said.

Interesting law, seems like a bit of a scam since everyone knows that a doctor doesn't need to be involved to get someone knocked up. So it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense that sperm donors should be held financially accountable, after all being a donor and being a Dad are very different roles. There's also the point that the donor never made any promises, nor had any commitment to the creation of the baby, he merely donated the necessary cells to get the process kickstarted.

In the simplest analysis a couple, in this case two women, decided to have a child. Regardless of the actual procreation, they were the parents of the baby. Yet based on a technicality the 'partner' who should be the one supporting her decision for the rest of her life gets absolved of financial responsibility and the sucker, I mean sperm donor, is stuck holding the bag.

Same sex couples can't play by rules as they choose. You agree to have a baby, you raise that baby. The state unfortunately is mixed up, not sure who they represent and falling back on outdated rules when gay marriage wasn't even a concept.

I suppose it's a bad pun: Cave-hump emptor, guys if you're gonna get stuck with the bill, at least get the satisfaction of getting laid. It might be the only free ride you'll get.