>Marley Greiner wrote: What a mess! "Choice" strikes again. MarleyChoice? At this point I'm not even sure it's ever been in thedictionary. In fact, I'm fairly certain it's commonly writtenin smoke, on mirrors. In all the reams and reams of this garbageI see not a word about how this will all come down on the children.pb...

Perhaps not much differently, if at all, than those cases in which a man is
simply sperm donor.

jmdjmh writes of the lesbian couple parental rights dispute:
Perhaps not much differently, if at all, than those cases in which a man issimply sperm donor.>>

I initially thought the same. However, the more realistic comparison would be
if an unmarried, cohabitating man and woman bore a child and the man could
prove paternity after they split, he WOULD retain parental rights. The woman
whose eggs were used can certainly establish "paternity"? "Maternity"? She is
connected via DNA to the child in question *and* she parented the child in the
active, daily sense.

The ruling is unfair.


P2P

jmdjmh writes of the lesbian couple parental rights dispute:
Perhaps not much differently, if at all, than those cases in which a man issimply sperm donor.>>

I initially thought the same. However, the more realistic comparison would be
if an unmarried, cohabitating man and woman bore a child and the man could
prove paternity after they split, he WOULD retain parental rights. The woman
whose eggs were used can certainly establish "paternity"? "Maternity"? She is
connected via DNA to the child in question *and* she parented the child in the
active, daily sense.

The ruling is unfair.


P2P

>jmdjmh writes of the lesbian couple parental rights dispute:Perhaps not much differently, if at all, than those cases in which a man issimply sperm donor.>>I initially thought the same. However, the more realistic comparison would beif an unmarried, cohabitating man and woman bore a child and the man couldprove paternity after they split, he WOULD retain parental rights. The womanwhose eggs were used can certainly establish "paternity"? "Maternity"? Sheisconnected via DNA to the child in question *and* she parented the child intheactive, daily sense.The ruling is unfair.P2P

I don 't disagree with your assessment of the fairness of the decision. As
always, the law is running well behind reproductive technology and the
evolution of the family unit.

J.





Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

>jmdjmh writes of the lesbian couple parental rights dispute:Perhaps not much differently, if at all, than those cases in which a man issimply sperm donor.>>I initially thought the same. However, the more realistic comparison would beif an unmarried, cohabitating man and woman bore a child and the man couldprove paternity after they split, he WOULD retain parental rights. The womanwhose eggs were used can certainly establish "paternity"? "Maternity"? Sheisconnected via DNA to the child in question *and* she parented the child intheactive, daily sense.The ruling is unfair.P2P

I don 't disagree with your assessment of the fairness of the decision. As
always, the law is running well behind reproductive technology and the
evolution of the family unit.

J.





Reply to jmhjmd at aol.