Re: Did you hear? -- PREGNANCY:ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Mon 04 May, 2026 20:21:19

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

Subject: Re: Did you hear?

Author:
FQ

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Sun 29 May, 2005 10:50:39
In reply to: Confounded 's message, "Did you hear?" on Wed 18 May, 2005 15:55:03

I think the key are the bystander effects of the statutory laws that by donating through a fertility centre, you can annul your legal parentage rights and responsibilities. So by doing this, you are cutting the legal thread, even if you are a donor. Since that is statutory law in all states that allow DI, there is no question that this process of cutting is DOABLE.

The real question is therefore, why is this doable here (fertility centres) and not there (private AI). The Pennsylvania court has simply ruled that one process is covered by statutory law, the other process is not. It is interesting that the judges did not try to invoke the societal benefit of having fertility centres, and them only, shielded from litigation. They simply said, law is law, and this is the boundary.

My impression is that their failure to invoke societal benefit for the exception is making the concept of paternal obligation much more fragile. So my humble opinion would be that this is not the final decision. Especially since the judges were very uncomfortable in uprholding the paternal obligation. The next level will probably deal a more profound blow to the concept of paternal obligation following AI - I am relatively optimistic on this.

Would anyone like to take me up on that bet?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]