Should child support be required in this situation?

Question

Imagine a man with whom you are sexually active but not planning to have a child with is a skilled amateur gynecologist and is able to procure one of your eggs without your knowledge (don't ask me about the gross details of such a procedure; let's keep this in the hypothetical). Suppose then that he manages, also without your knowledge, to acquire a surrogate mother to donate her womb and inseminates the egg with his own sperm, thus producing a child that's biologically yours without your knowledge or input. Should he be able to sue you for child support?

In this situation, have you "given away your reproductive rights" by being sexually active with him in the first place? If you are sexually active with someone, should you be ready to raise a child at any time, even if you have not agreed to have one and the child is brought to maturity without your knowledge or input? Or should responsibility for a child be confined to those who wished and endeavored to bring it into existence?

Answer 1

Legally, the surrogate Mother would be more liable, because she accepted the fertilized egg without the mother's permission.

This doesn't compare to the male situation, because the egg is not taken in the act that produces pregnancy.  Yes, there is s*x, and it is foreseeable that s*x leads to pregnancy.  It is NOT foreseeable that someone would anesthetize you and take an egg from you without your knowledge.  That is not how children are made.  The law requires that a consequence be foreseeable before applying liability.  

A better case for your point would be a woman who, as they do in the urban legend...takes the sperm from the condom.  Of course it would be dead...but that still doesn't work since condoms do not state that they are 100% effective, so the pregnancy is still foreseeable.

However, if a woman had saved her eggs in a marriage, and without her permission or knowledge the man fertilized them and planted them in a surrogate mother, there might be some liability and foreseeability.  Once again, the surrogate mother would possibly have more liability.

Answer 2

In this scenario, being "sexually active" with this person had nothing to do with the child being born.  It's not a result of a sexual encounter, making this a very poor analogy.

Answer 3

Eleanor wrote: "The needs of the child come first."

Funny how it's a "child" if the woman decides to keep it, but men have no legal say on what HE considers it before gestation. As women have the right to opt out of parenthood once a pregnancy takes place, men should also have that right. Our constitution guarantees equal protection. Reproductive and paternity laws are anything but equal.

Answer 4

This is more common the other way around, where a woman acquires a sample of a man's s***n, without his knowledge, say from a used condom and successfully impregnates herself.  It is a bit of an urban myth, but it has been tested in court a few times, with mixed results.  Remember, however skilled he is though, the odds of him successfully acquiring an egg, transplanting it and fertilising it without medical intervention and assistance is pretty well zero anyway.

If he stole her egg and then used for his own purposes, in this case a surrogate birth, then he is guilty of a wide range of offences, the least of which should get him struck from any medical register if he were a professional gynaecologist.  He certainly should have no rights to sue the woman whose egg was stolen for child support!

S case in a similar vein happened in the UK several months ago where a L*****n couple used a sperm donor to have a child, and the couple later split, and the sperm donor was successfully sued for child support.  This is one reason why I am against people conceived through IVF being allowed to know who the sperm donor was, as is now the case in many places, and people who use donated sperm or eggs are more and more allowed to know who donated the gametes.   It is also the reason why I would never donate sperm: the laws may well be changed to make me responsible for any children that result.

Answer 5

Of course not. And I don't believe at lall that you give away your reproductive rights when you are sexually active.

I understand your point that ultimately it's the woman's choice, and although this may seem unfair I do think that in the end it's whoever's body it's in.

But I got an AMAZING plan which will solve all these problems!!!! How about people actually talk about conseqeunces BEFORE they drop their pants!

Answer 6

Your bottom line is asking whether responsibility should be confined to those who are willing to accept it?

NO! Actions have consequences, and individuals must be held accountable for their actions.  ALL of their actions, including the criminal ones.  

Sometimes being responsible sucks, but adults have to suck it up and live with the consequences of their actions.

If you wreck your car, do you get to "opt out" of repairing or replacing it?  What are the consequences of such an opt out?

You have to find alternate means of transportation.  You cannot pretend that nothing happened..there are consequences staring you in the face.  This is trivial compared to the abortion/child support debate, but it effectively illustrates my point.

Merriam-Webster Online:

Main Entry: re·spon·si·ble  

Pronunciation: \ri-ˈspän(t)-sə-bəl\

Function: adjective

Etymology: Anglo-French responsable, from respuns

Date: 1643

1 a: liable to be called on to answer b (1): liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent <a committee responsible for the job> (2): being the cause or explanation <mechanical defects were responsible for the accident> c: liable to legal review or in case of fault to penalties

2 a: able to answer for one's conduct and obligations : trustworthy b: able to choose for oneself between right and wrong

3: marked by or involving responsibility or accountability <responsible financial policies> <a responsible job>

4: politically answerable; especially : required to submit to the electorate if defeated by the legislature —used especially of the British cabinet.

Answer 7

I don't know about should, but yes - he would be able to sue her for child support.  The needs of the child come first.  Even where the primary caregiver states that they do not wish to receive it, the state can still pursue the opposite partner for child support, so fiscal responsibility cannot be avoided where parentage is known :-)

Answer 8

there are some huge law suits just waiting to happen in this hypothetical situation.  As he will be paid her damages, no I don't think the courts will grant child support.

Are you trying to compare this to a true sperm donor (like though a clinic kind)?   Legally sperm donors have no rights to the child and no liabilities for child support and such.

Fathers rights...mens' sexual rights need some work.  I will agree with you 100% on that....got a solution?  I havnt seen one yet.

Answer 9

No, the egg was taken without her permission and put in someone else. The amateur doc should have to pay for taking the egg in the first place.

Answer 10

i dont' believe either situation would be requiring child support to be paid because it is baisically stealing and would a dealership be reliable if a person ran over someone with the dealerships car? no the person driving would be responisble, the person in controll

Answer 11

The man used his medical knowledge for complete decete.

He should be barred from ever practicing medicin again.

He should serve time in jail.

All of his money should go toward the raising/education/heal care of the child he immorally, and illegally produced.

He should never have contact with the child, as he is obviously highly unstable mentally.

The woman he stole the egg from, thru the miss-use of medical practices, should recieve counsiling, compinsation by the doctor.

She should be offered the child, if the courts/mental doctors deemed that should could take custody safely, without holding anger/a grudge against the baby.  If she could bond safely with the baby, they she should be given legal custody.

If she did not want the baby, it should be immediately put up for adoption.

The  surrogate mother should have to prove she had no idea the egg had been stollen, or that the other woman had no knowledge.

If the surrogate was duped by the doctor, she too should have the right to sue him (but no money to her, before the babies needs were taken care of).

If the surrogate was culpable, she too should serve time, and have to pay for the care and keeping of the baby, with zero contact ever with the baby.  The surrogate would have then also proven herself completely mentally unstable, by agreeing to help create a life.

I'm not stupid....I fully realize your real question was, "should a man have to pay child support if a woman lies about being on the pill, or using birth control of some sort."

Answer:  Yes, the man should have to pay.  This day in age, there is zero mystery as to how babies are created.  This day in age there is not one single person who believes all other people are honest at all times.  People lie all the time.  Women lie about being on the pill.  Men lie about having STD's (as do women).  

If you don't know your partner, and are not in a deeply trusting, and commited relationship, bring your own protection to the party.

~Garnet

Answer 12

It is a very difficult question to answer.  I see what you are getting at, and I agree.  I believe that if reproductive material has been obtained through deceptive measures, that the person in question should not have to pay child support, unless they wish to pursue custody.  I believe that "stealing" an egg, would be the equivalent to lying about being on the pill, or putting holes in a condom deliberately.

So to answer: No, he should not be able to sue for child support.  And in the opposite case (that of lying about or deliberately employing defective contraception), I do also believe that the mother should not sue for child support.

This is of course, different to "accidents" that occur due to ignorance or innocence.   If neither of you are using anything... (and are both aware of this), you are both responsible for the outcome, just as in a true accidental breakage.

Obviously not the legal stance, but I am saying what SHOULD happen, not what does.

Answer 13

No one should sue someone else for child support unless having the child was partly their idea. I am planning to donate my eggs in the near future, and if one of them results in a child, I don't want to hear anything about it.

Also, I've seen your content before, and I know you're a good guy.

Answer 14

The bigger question to be asked is what criminal charges should the father be brought upon? Donating eggs is not an easy procedure and not not anywhere near as easy as donating sperm. It is doubtful a person could procure an egg without the the woman noticing, or at least thinking, "why is there this throbbing pain in my abdomen?" after she wakes up. This is because, unlike with sperm donation, egg donation requires a giant needle being stuck in a person's ovary. What this person is doing is performing surgery without this woman's permission. Also, many egg donors need to take medications that can have serious side effects. He would probably be stripped of his medical license and would serve jail time.

Answer 15

I wanted to start out by saying I think you are one of the good guys too so don't take offense to my answer please.  Thanks.

He essentially would have raped and stolen from the women no he has no right to child support.  In fact she should be able to take custody of the child as he is not fit to raise the child.  

I think that any two people about to start a sexual relationship should ask the tough questions? Men:  Are you on the pill? Can you have children? Do you want children? How do you feel about abortion; and women:  What would you say if I got pregnant? Do you want to be a father someday? How do you feel about abortion?

After all shouldn't we really now the consequences of our decisions.

Answer 16

Excellent hypothetical!!!

Answer 17

Whoever conceives a child should be responsible for that child. It doesn't matter whether or not a man 'intended' to impregnate a woman or not. The fact is that if he is the biological father, then he should be financially responsible for that child, so that the responsible tax payers don't have to be.