Re: Yet another IP argument

From: Loree Thomas (
Date: Mon Aug 14 2000 - 01:18:04 MDT

Thank you! You just proved MY point!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <>

> <<Present statutory law is split concerning the parental status of sperm
> donors. Fifteen states have statutes, patterned after Section 5(b) of
> the Uniform Parentage Act,
> specifying that a donor will not be considered the father of a child
> born of artificial insemination if the semen was provided to a licensed
> physician for use in artificial insemination of a married woman other than
> donor's wife. Fifteen
> other statutes do not explicitly limit nonparenthood to situations where
> the semen is provided to a physician. Instead, they shield donors from
> parenthood in all situations where a married woman is artificially
> with her husband's consent. >> (i.e. if the husband does not give his
consent (or
> rescinds his consent any time in the two years following the act of
> insemination) then the donor, known or anonymous, is considered a
> parent.

So much for "Yet every legal precedent in the country states that ultimately
it is
the biological parents who are responsible for their biological

You should have made me work for it. Not that I would have! However, it
was nice of you to shoot yourself in the foot for me. Need a bandage?

Actually, I'm glad that when I pushed you just a little, you turned out to
be intellectually honest. My opinion of you just went up a notch.


Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free address at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:56 MDT