There are anonymous donors, correct? So does this decision cover them as well? If so, how, being the action itself is anonymous?

As infrequently as we get to have these conversations, I'd be very disappointed if you didn't! And, though Krier mentioned it not in class (for obvious reasons) he believed that this is why Judaism passes maternally, rather than based on whether the father was a Jew.

One of our fundamental differences is that I do not believe a child has a "right" to seek payment from its biological parents. I will refrain from my usual analogizing riff here, but that is one of several "rights" I don't think a child has. Therefore, we're not "punishing" the child b/c we're not depriving it of "rights". It's a little unsettling, in a sky-is-pink kind of way, to hear about all these "rights" from a guy who was going to walk into the Ann Arbor Food Cooperative taking anything he wanted, without paying, saying over his shoulder on the way out "but I need this food, therefore I'm justified." :D

I stipulate (1) I am Mr. Transaction/Opportunity Cost; (2) I have a small, black heart; and (3) I am not a newly minted parent -- nor do I ever plan to be.

In fact, in my world, if a woman gets pregnant through consensual sex, and the man says "I do not want to have this child", if the woman, knowing this, goes forward anyway, then the child is exclusively her responsibility. "Her body. Her decision." Fine. It's just missing the last part: "Her responsibility."

I agree with much of what you've written, especially that people conflate alimony w/ child support, and I particularly agree that the facts in this case are abominable from an inductive, "what can/should we conclude from these particular facts" perspective. Further, I did not give you credit for what I assume was an intentional (and fantastic) joke about the Statute of Frauds ... specifically, that the UCC could apply b/c she got his "goods". Snicker.

ATEOTD, this guy got screwed. And, I'm against that sort of thing, especially when one such droplet stands out so egregiously in the tidal wave of guys getting screwed vis-a-vis women/children.

Thinking about it while reading your post, I'd suggest this: If the state is going to void an agreement* between two consenting adults (policy choice), then rather than foist upon this poor bastard what are the responsibilities she expressly assumed, the state should take the responsibility for paying her a fair market rate for the kids (which would almost certainly be less than they imposed upon the guy -- it's easy to spend OPM. In your line of work, you know that. :D).

Why should the state do that, you ask (over a plate of cheese, saltines, onions and mustard at McSorley's on a bright Spring Saturday afternoon)? Because then the people of said state (God bless federalism) could decide whether or not they wanted to bear the burden of this kind of judicial activism.

If they wanted to -- great! Any broad could then go out, lie (or "change her mind") and the state would assume the burden of her whims. Yay!

And, if not, they could (1) oust the judge for such a decision; (2) require legislators to pass laws stating that, in the interest of the public policy favoring the increase of population (one with which I have fundamental qualms), especially for the benefit of single women for whom 5 cats aren't enough attention, all pre-conception agreements between consenting adults must be enforced according to their terms; and/or (3) pass what I will affectionately refer to as "JP's Law", stating, as I said before, that any woman that gives birth to -- and keeps -- a child without specific knowledge that the father wants the child is solely and entirely responsible for such child.

And, if other residents of such state (including calculating cyounts) didn't like that approach, they could move to another state where men are always re$pon$ible. Viva la federalism!

And don't worry about my cheering section. Separating the res from even the genus escapes some people. Despising behavior therefore equals despising all people of the sex that behave that way. I despise bullies, therefore I despise all men. QED.

Trasaction/Opportunity Costs... just move along. Nothing to be gained here... just move along.

Krier referred to it thus, in one of his classics: Some people go for the jugular; others have an instinct for the capillaries.

Me, I go for the aorta (the descending aorta, just below the sternum -- you can't stop that massive internal bleed!).

JP

* "Contract" sophistications, SoF, UCC ... whatever notwithstanding, these people had an agreement absolutely essential to her getting pregnant...and a technical excuse, ordinarily applied to "sophisticated parties" in "commercial transactions" entirely relieving her of her obligations would be batshyt. The judge didn't need to invoke these tried and true principles any way, invoking the almighty "policy" considerations of "childrens' rights" in an effort to quash debate. "Won't somebody think of the children?!?!!"

Geez, didn't you guys ever see Legally Blonde?

Elle already handled this one, the judge is wrong, whether it were upheld on appeal or not.

If the judge is correct, he just made abortion illegal, you can't have it both ways.

So I should have been able to compel my ex-wife to spend the child support payments on the children, as intended, rather than on herself, but that would never happen now, would it.

Jesus. That seals it - I'm getting a vasectomy and putting an end to any fears of financial ruin being brought upon me once and for all.

That's why I make them swallow.

How do you know they are "left leaning" in the examples you're citing here?

Nostrilcheese's constant encouragements to "put it in the butt" are starting to make more sense now. . .

By the liberal positions they take. What do you think he means by "left leaning"?

What "liberal" positions are you talking about?

(In other words, cite examples, provide opinion briefs, and sho evidence of their political leanings....you know....PROVE these silly allegations against these unnamed entities.....)

The whole concepts of "redistribution of wealth" and "dumping accountability for one's choices" seem to be pretty much owned by those with far-left leaning ideologies.

c = c
you = u
n = n
t= t

or...see you next tuesday...

no no no flatbutt, it's c-u-n-t == "can't understand normal thought."

+1 for JP. Just when I was getting a glimmer of hope in our justice system after the DC handgun ban was struck down....

Eh, +1 is a bit weak. +5!

I agree with the premises of this thread, but I think jP is mixing his words a little, to the detriment of his original argument.
The logic-flow of this post is also a bit difficult to follow. And then more difficult to follow.

Walking into a store in Ann Arbor(Michigan) and taking something without purchasing it should be akin to sex without paying for the consequences?...
...Therefore a man should pay 18 years for his "15 seconds of fame"????
Sorry, lost me there bud.

It take's two to tango, right? Joint partnership(business)? Equal representation(constitution)? All men(women) are equal(constitution)?
It must require two concenting parents to decide to create another human being.

You dont really care to have the position supported now do you? You are here to stir the pot a bit, or so it would appear. If you bothered to click on the link in the initial post, you would have all the citations you would care to peruse, but that does not seem to be your point, thanks for chiming in...ta ta for now