Giving an Inch, Taking a Mile

Scott Hardie | July 24, 2004
So many terrible things have happened in the news lately that I thought I'd be numb to any further injustice in the world, then along comes a little thing like this and I remember how to feel angry again. A judicial panel has ruled that a sperm donor must pay $1500 per month in financial support for his now-ten-year-old offspring, despite an agreement between him and the mother beforehand that he would never have to pay a dime. "It is the interest of the children we hold most dear," wrote the senior judge.

Not only does this ruling ignore all existing precedents on the matter of verbal agreements (here's proof that "judicial activism" is not the exclusive domain of liberal justices, thank you very much), but it casts a dark cloud over the future of sperm donorship. A married couple I count among my friends happens to be infertile, and if they had come to me asking for help, I would have been inclined to say yes, but that definitely changes after this ruling. Men who donate sperm, women who donate eggs, and women who agree to surrogate pregnancies are doing a favor for the other party. For an infertile couple, the ability to have children is one of the most profound gifts anyone can give. But this is America, where lawyers may as well hold you upside-down by your ankles and shake the money out of your pockets the second you get involved in someone else's life, and apparently donating this profound gift to someone in need is going to cost you $324,000 (the monthly cost in this case, for eighteen years, not to mention attorney fees). What a disgusting abuse of someone's generosity.

Melissa Erin | July 24, 2004
[hidden by request]

Mike Eberhart | July 26, 2004
And this is exactly why I vote out every judge that's on the ballot. It's just my own little protest to the judicial system that it needs to be fixed.

Jackie Mason | July 26, 2004
[hidden by request]