The flip of that 2014 bill could make a base for a story: Woman steals a frozen sample of man’s love lotion #9, knocks herself up, sues the man for child support.
That could happen now; it’s not rocket sex science.
1 Like
it wouldn’t get very far though because courts frown upon impregnating yourself with someone else’s semen without the person’s permission and then acting like said person owes you something for it.
1 Like
Uh excuse me MRAs claim that “spermjacking” is a real thing and are you calling them liahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahhhhhhhh oh boy.
5 Likes
“God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural… fluids. God bless you all” and he hung up.
5 Likes
I suspect that MRAs have lots of experience with, um, spermjacking.
2 Likes
Is there any legal status conferred upon a “legitimate” child that a bastard doesn’t have? I mean outside of hereditary nobility/royalty, which we don’t play here.
Maybe a father could challenge child support based on illegitimacy, but we’ve had DNA matching for a while now, so what’s this law supposed to address?
3 Likes
White morality.
Cue the hysterical laughter.
4 Likes
The statute seems to be silent as to the question of the source of the donor material. In other words, the child is currently considered the legitimate child of the married couple even if the sperm is not from the husband. So presumably for matters of support and inheritance, the husband could disclaim the child as his if the sperm was not his:
I don’t know the subtleties of Tennessee law to know whether there might be other consequences for “illegitimate” children.
1 Like
I’ve no idea how it works in Tennessee, but around here the parental support laws are written so that the court’s decisions focus almost exclusively on the needs of the child.
Child support isn’t a thing that you owe to your ex-partner; it’s a thing that you owe to your child. The past actions of the other parent aren’t even a factor.
Even in the mythical MRA spermjacking scenario, the parental obligation to the child persists (although prior deceptive behaviour would be a factor in any custody hearing).
3 Likes
Alright, fair point, though this scenario where a woman’s stolen frozen sperm would be…interesting depending on circumstances like where it was stolen from and if they actually know each other.
4 Likes
just when I think this state can’t get any dumber…I’m proven wrong…
1 Like
Yet another reason why religious dogma and public policy make poor bedfellows … and why sanctimonious, theocracy-leaning politicians make poor legislators.
1 Like
Further evidence that the verdict in the Scopes Monkey Trial was spot-on correct … for at least in Tennessee, humans have not evolved a lick.
3 Likes
Who gets to decide who is stupid? You? The current crop of people in power? Some scientists? Are people with mental handicaps stupid? Dyslexic people? Religious people? People who can’t read or were underserved by whatever education they got? Are blind or deaf people stupid? People who disagree with you or me? What makes you think that intelligence is the past way to judge people? What about morality? What about empathy and kindness?
6 Likes
And we all know that science begins at conception.
2 Likes
Middle eastern morality.
Before Christianity, my ancestors had no concept of this. There was a kid, it lived in your house, it was your kid.
1 Like
Conceivable step
Nope. It’s real, but the headline is not exactly truthful. Rather than making them “illegitimate”, it just removes the specific designation of “legitimate”.
I FINALLY tracked down something beyond the “WTF!!!”'s that adds a smidge of clarity to what’s going on (or is just a pathetic attempt to recover, you decide) and digs the mystery a little deeper.
From the she-devil herself’s web page:
http://www.weaverhouse40.com/TheLoop.html
"02/11/2017 BULLETIN Response to intent of HB1406
A couple of months ago, the state’s Attorney General filed a brief in a lawsuit related to this statute in which he said that the law, as written and enacted, was unconstitutional. It is not unusual for the legislature to repeal a law that is unconstitutional.
Thankfully, there is another statute still on the books that makes it clear that when a child is born to a married woman, the child is presumed to be that of her husband. So, the repeal of the law does not de-legitimize a child conceived by insemination and, to be honest, the law that will remain on the books is less intrusive into the relationship of a husband and wife than the statute being repealed. Unlike the law being repealed, the remaining law that will now govern the situation does not have the government inquiring into the means by which the couple¹s child came into existence or whose sperm, the husband’s or a donor¹s, was used.
I hope that helps explain the overall situation.
Thanks,
Terri Lynn Weaver"
Yeah, this does NOT explain the overall situation, but after looking at her website I need to go sit in the shower and cry for a bit.
1 Like
