Sperm Donor must pay Child Support for Lesbian Couple’s Child

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 26th, 2014

Week in Review

Proponents of same-sex marriage say there is no difference with it and traditional marriage.  And that same-sex couples can be parents just as traditional couples can.  There’s just the matter of getting a child.  As a same-sex couple cannot conceive a child.  But as long as women give up their unwanted babies for adoption instead of aborting them a same-sex couple should be able to adopt a child.  Or a lesbian couple could find a sperm donor (see Court: Marotta is a father, not merely a sperm donor by Steve Fry posted 1/22/2014 on cjonline).

A Topeka man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple is the presumptive father to a baby one of the woman bore and is subject to paying child support, a Shawnee County District Court judge ruled Wednesday.

In her written decision, District Court Judge Mary Mattivi said that because William Marotta and the same-sex couple failed to secure the services of a physician during the artificial insemination process, he wasn’t entitled to the same protections given other sperm donors under Kansas law…

Marotta contended he was only a sperm donor to a same-sex couple seeking a child, but the Kansas Department for Children and Families argued he is a father who owes child support to his daughter. The girl is 4 years old…

The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed the case in October 2012 seeking to have Marotta declared the father of a girl Schreiner bore in 2009.

Marotta opposed the action, saying he didn’t intend to be the child’s father, and that he had signed a contract waiving his parental rights and responsibilities while agreeing to donate sperm in a plastic cup to Schreiner and Angela Bauer, who was then her partner. Marotta contacted the women after they placed a Craigslist ad seeking a sperm donor.

The state has been seeking to have Marotta declared the child’s father so he can be responsible for about $6,000 in public assistance the state provided, as well as future child support.

This makes a good case against same-sex couple adoption.  For without a blood tie to the baby it is apparently easy to walk away from it.  Even if one made a commitment to raise a child together.  Like with this lesbian couple.  The partner to the mother of the baby left.  Without providing for that baby.  So the mother and baby became wards of the state.  Which is why the state went after the sperm donor for child support.  Even though he had an agreement with the lesbian couple that he would have no responsibility for their child.

There are strict guidelines for adopting a baby.  To make sure the child goes to a good home.  With parents who have the financial wherewithal to raise a child.  Apparently there is no such requirement for the donation of sperm.  Which can place a child in a home with parents who do not have the financial wherewithal to raise a child.  At least it would appear so.

A marriage between a man and a woman is about children.  To conceive and bring children into the world.  In a partnership that facilitates the raising of children.  To give them a last name.  A stay-at-home mother gets added to her husband’s employer benefits.  So she can stay at home and work without pay while being covered by her working husband’s benefits.  Where a mother and a father can both raise their children.  Each teaching them what they uniquely can.  Giving them as complete a childhood as possible.  Tied forever to their children by blood.  This is what marriage is for.  Children.  All the employer benefits of marriage.  All the legal advantages of marriage.  All the tax advantages of marriage.  They’re all there for one reason.  To facilitate the raising of children.  So parents raise their children.  And not the state.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT205: “Liberals reconcile conflicting positions with imaginary logic.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 17th, 2014

Fundamental Truth

We have Complex Numbers because there is no such thing as a Square-Root of a Negative Number

If we graph AC voltage and AC current we would see two sine waves.  Graphs that rise from zero, reach a peak, fall back through zero, reach a nadir and then rise back up to zero.  Which repeats over and over.  And when we have voltage and current we get power.  If we pick a point in time on our AC voltage and current graphs we can multiply the value for the current by the value of the voltage to arrive at a value for power.  If these two sine waves are on top of each other we will get the highest value for power.  If one graph moves ahead or behind the other (so we can see two sine waves instead of one) we will have a value less than the highest power.

Picture two capital ‘S’s lying on their side.  So they look like one period of a sine wave.  And one is on top of the other so we only see one.  If we draw a vertical line through the highest point on these ‘sine waves’ both ‘S’s will have the same highest value.  Let’s call that value ‘3’.  Giving us a power of 9 (3 X 3).  Now let’s move one ‘sine wave’ to the right.  And look at that same vertical line.  With the one ‘sine wave’ moved they won’t have the same value at that point.  One will be less than the other.  Because the maximum value for that ‘sine wave’ occurs to the right of the maximum value of the other.  Let’s say the value for the moved ‘sine wave’ at that point is now 2.  Giving us a power of 6 (2 X 3).

When the power and current are 100% in phase we get our maximum power.  When they move out of phase we get a value of power less than the maximum.  Even though the voltage and current waves are unchanged.  The degree they are out of phase is called the phase angle.  And it’s a problem for power companies.  Because the typical electric meter only measures part of the power a customer uses.  The real or active power.  Not the reactive power.  And it’s a combination of the active and reactive power that gives us apparent power.  What the power companies produce.  In the ideal world (where the voltage and current sine waves are on top of each other perfectly in phase) reactive power is zero and apparent power equals active power.  Mathematically we express this with complex numbers.  Where there is a real part (the active part).  And an imaginary part (the reactive part).  Where i2 = -1.  Something that can’t happen in the realm of real numbers.  As there is no such thing as a square-root of a negative number.  But it is this use of imaginary numbers that let’s engineers build the world around us.

Criminalizing Cigarette Smoking plus Decriminalizing Marijuana Smoking Equals more Democrat Votes

Complicated, yes?  Few of us understand this.  But that’s okay.  We don’t have to.  Engineers are very smart people that can do remarkable things mathematically to model and build our world.  And when they do that world is a better place.  Which is all most of us care about.  So imaginary numbers may be a foreign concept to most.  But they provide a very ordered and sensical world.  Unlike other imaginary things.  Like unicorns.  Fairies.  And imaginary logic.

Liberals are high practitioners of imaginary logic.  On its face it seems like gibberish.  Illogical.  And nonsensical.  But like complex numbers it’s the combination of these nonsensical parts that serve to advance an agenda.  For example, in their ideal world everyone would abort an unplanned and/or unwanted child.  While also saying that same-sex couples should be able to adopt and raise children.  But how can a same-sex couple adopt a child if no unplanned or unwanted child is given up for adoption?  Having both of these positions is like the square-root of a negative number.  It’s just impossible.  Unless you enter the world of imaginary logic.  Where unfettered abortion plus same-sex adoption equals more Democrat votes.

Liberals have banned cigarette smoking wherever they could.  First there were no smoking sections in restaurants.  Then they banned smoking entirely from restaurants.  Once upon a time people could smoke in the workplace.  Then they forced them into smoking lounges.  Then outside of the building.  And finally a minimum distance away from the doorway.  Because smoking will kill you.  The people around you breathing in second-hand smoke.  And the people breathing in the stink you leave behind after smoking (third-hand smoke).  Smoke in the lungs is the number one killer in America. It is so horrible that no one should be able to smoke.  No one should be able to advertise smoking.  Even the cigarette packages shouldn’t be pretty as that may entice kids to start smoking.  But liberals have no problem with people smoking unfiltered marijuana cigarettes.  With marijuana they take the exact opposite position than they do with cigarettes.  Go ahead and smoke.  You aren’t hurting anyone.  Having both of these positions is like the square-root of a negative number.  It’s just impossible.  Unless you enter the world of imaginary logic.  Where criminalizing cigarette smoking plus decriminalizing marijuana smoking equals more Democrat votes.

Hollywood Liberals hate Cigarettes and Guns but love them in their Movies

Hollywood movie producer Harvey Weinstein recently said on the Howard Stern radio show that he hates the National Rifle Association (NRA).  And is going to make a movie to destroy them.  For he thinks guns in America are a horrible thing.  He hates them.  And hates people having them.  But he loves them when they are in his movies.  And has become quite wealthy glorifying horrific gun violence.  If you are unfamiliar with some of the movies he produced you can look them up on IMDB.  Here are just a few that are filled with over the top and very graphic gun violence (as well as sword violence, knife violence, blunt force violence, etc.).  Django Unchained (2012).  Grindhouse (2007).  Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003).  Gangs of New York (2002).  Pulp Fiction (1994).  True Romance (1993).  To name a few.  This is how the View content advisory under Violence and Gore begins for Django Unchained: “Note that most of the violence in this film are [sic] over the top and very graphic.”

Harvey Weinstein is a liberal Democrat.  Who believes the only reason why people are using guns to shoot a lot of people is because those guns are for sale.  Cigarette ads and pretty packaging will entice kids to start smoking.  But showing wholesale violence like in his movies would never encourage a kid to pick up a gun?  For that matter, the next time you see one of these movies note how many people smoke in them (or see Alcohol/Drugs/ Smoking under View content advisory on IMDB).  Having Joe Camel on a cigarette package is going to get a kid to start smoking but seeing his or her favorite movie star smoking—and making smoking look so cool—isn’t?   Of course it is.  Far more than any cigarette ad is.  Just as the vicious gun violence in these movies is desensitizing some kids to gun violence.  And is the reason why young kids are having pretend gun fights at school.  Not because they are card-carrying members of the NRA.  But because they saw it in a movie.

Liberals believe cigarettes and guns are horrible things.  And no one should touch them.  But liberal movie producers fill their movies with cigarettes and guns.  Because they are so cool and fun to watch.  Having both of these positions is like the square-root of a negative number.  It’s just impossible.  Unless you enter the world of imaginary logic.  Where criminalizing cigarette smoking and gun ownership plus glorifying cigarette smoking and vicious gun violence (and sex and drugs) in the movies equals more Democrat votes.  Which is what imaginary logic is all about.  Democrat votes.  Which is why liberals can have conflicting positions on the same subject.  Because they don’t really care about the subject.  Or the people they harm.  They just want the power that comes with getting people to vote Democrat.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Despite Strict Abortion Laws some UK Doctors provided Abortions for Women who didn’t Like the Sex of their Fetus

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 25th, 2012

Week in Review

The UK has law governing abortion.  Unlike the US.  Who has no law on the books.  Well, there were many laws on the books in the several states.  But Roe v. Wade made these moot.  Perhaps the most contentious Supreme Court ruling of all time.  And what many call legislating from the bench.  For this decision didn’t interpret law.  It made new law.  For there was no law on the federal register to interpret.  And that’s how abortions became legal in the United States.  Whereas the UK actually debated the issue.  And used their legislative body to write it into low.  A novel use of the legislature.  Legislating.

Roe v. Wade was based on an abortion that never was.  The ‘Jane Roe’ in Roe v. Wade was Norma McCorvey.  Who had her baby and gave it up for adoption.  Converted to Catholicism in later life.  And became pro-life.  She regrets her part in Roe v. Wade.  And now works to overturn that decision.  The only ‘law’ on the books for abortion in America.  Granting full access to abortion without any legislative debate whatsoever.  Which they probably didn’t want.  For they did have that debate in the UK.  And their law placed some restrictions on abortion (see Abortion forms being ‘pre-signed’ by Press Association posted 3/23/2012 on the guardian).

Spot checks at more than 250 abortion clinics this week found evidence of blank forms being signed in anticipation of patients seeking a termination.

The law states that, except in emergencies, two doctors must agree for a woman to have an abortion.

Although doctors do not have to see the woman in person, they must certify that they are aware of her circumstances and why she wants to go ahead with the procedure…

The news comes after a Daily Telegraph investigation last month uncovered allegations that doctors at three clinics had agreed to terminations based on the sex of the baby.

The General Medical Council (GMC) has suspended or placed restrictions on these doctors and the claims are being investigated by the Metropolitan police, Greater Manchester police and West Midlands police…

In the UK, abortions are allowed on certain grounds, including that continuing with the pregnancy would be a greater risk to the woman’s life, physical or mental health than ending the pregnancy, continuing would be more of a risk to the physical or mental health of any of the woman’s existing children and there is a real risk the child would have a serious physical or mental disability.

Apparently China isn’t the only nation that has aborted a pregnancy based on the sex of their baby.  This is perhaps the greatest concern to those on the pro-life side of the argument.  This selective breeding.  Just how far will people go in making their decisions in terminating their pregnancies?  An identified birth defect?  The sex of the baby?  The color of their hair (some kids pick on redheads in school).  If the fetus shows an obesity gene?  A short gene?  A premature bald gene?  An ugly gene?  A homosexual gene?  Just how far will parents go to have ‘perfect’ children?

Even an atheist has to admit this is getting too much like playing God.  A lot of women making these decisions are not in the best frame of mind.  A lot of them are young, too.  Who will have a lifetime ahead of them to think about this decision.  Which is why the British require counseling.  Because some women may change their mind.  Like Norma McCorvey did.  And if you do that would be a terrible thing to have to live with.

Often when it comes to an unwanted pregnancy the choice is to destroy a women’s life now by having a baby that she is ill-prepared to raise.  Or ruin her life later as she dwells on what she did when she was ill-prepared to raise a child.  Some may be burdened by this in later life.  Some may not.  But most would agree that they would much rather not ever be in the position to have to make this decision. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,