美國今天大笑話

juneway

美國果然係一個唔正常既國家

逗利是佛

made_in_HK 發表於 2013-1-5 00:41
中文版本和英文版本有一點不同, 但有一點是肯定的...我錯誤地說$5000子女撫養費, 應該是$6000

KANSAS ...

he donated the sperm directly to the women

What does that mean?

   係咪咁所以法庭判佢係個細路女個阿爸?

made_in_HK

逗利是佛 發表於 2013-1-5 01:26
he donated the sperm directly to the women

What does that mean?

女同性戀情侶買網絡廣告請求捐精.  Marotta回答廣告, 直接地帶左D精比女同性戀情侶.  女同性戀情侶帶左D精去醫生到設孕.  

"係咪咁所以法庭判佢係個細路女個阿爸?" 州政府迫女同性戀情侶講出 "whose 精 did you use? "... 女同性戀情侶起初拒絕作答, 但在州政府再次強迫下... 做左"金手指"
州法: Kansas officials are required under the law to determine the father of a child when someone seeks state benefits

莊子仁

回復 made_in_HK #1 的帖子

自稱大強 國 , 經濟不景 , 治 安差 , 天時地利不和 。

bbarying

made_in_HK 發表於 2013-1-5 00:58
"BB仔出世並不是任由你地3個玩玩吓, 捐精者以為自己好瀟灑, 一對女同性戀以為自己好有型" 我都有同感 :th ...

合法途徑與不合法途徑的爭論
有一點常識的人也董得分辨吧

其實這個案另一方是否同性戀不是我們討論的問題
相信睇戲都有很多這些題材
一對夫婦找人借種，背後所涉及的道德倫理的影响
更莫說不合法途徑之下所產生的法律責任
法定機構相對於個人責任應該更有保障

在英文版中得悉，男主角是從一個廣告網站的捐精廣告而捐出精子予那對同性戀的
他們3個人的私人協議是否有法律效力，當然不是他們3個人說了就算
別忘了還多出了一個生命！
所以教訓就是：
he was simply trying to help a couple wanting a child,
lesbian couple also simply want to have a child,
but what's the child wanted.
think more about before you do this PLEASE!

made_in_HK

bbarying 發表於 2013-1-5 02:02
合法途徑與不合法途徑的爭論
有一點常識的人也董得分辨吧

"he was simply trying to help a couple wanting a child,
lesbian couple also simply want to have a child,
but what's the child wanted.
think more about before you do this PLEASE!"... 100% agree.

"有一點常識的人也董得分辨吧"... 在美國, 不那麼肯定

另外, 你可能忽略了一個重點: "2007 case in which the Kansas Supreme Court ruled against a sperm donor seeking parental rights because he did not have any such agreement with the mother"

bogus_chan

There is really nothing funny about this. The law as written simply can't keep up with the way people live and how people evolve. The law was not written to include such a case. Think about it, the govt simply trying to apply the law blindly (what if the kid was born out of a wedlock, such as one night stand, the guy simply has to be responsible to pay for the kid). Had the guy done it in the doc's office, this would not have been a case. The moral of the story is, people pay a price to have democracy, freedom, and law and order. There is really nothing funny about this. I am sure the judge eventually would get this sorted out and the law would get amended for this kind of cases.  

made_in_HK

bogus_chan 發表於 2013-1-5 04:03
There is really nothing funny about this. The law as written simply can't keep up with the way peopl ...

"he govt simply trying to apply the law blindly" this is exactly the funny part, also...

"a 2007 case in which the Kansas Supreme Court ruled against a sperm donor seeking parental rights because he did not have any such agreement with the mother"... funny as in Kansas is contradicting itself within the law.

bogus_chan

Well the law is the law until the judge have to determine the validity of it. That's still not funny, that's just simply a justice system at work. You can have that or you can have the chinese leaders tell you what the law is?

made_in_HK

bogus_chan 發表於 2013-1-5 04:15
Well the law is the law until the judge have to determine the validity of it. That's still not funny ...

Judicial system and the state cannot work within the law = 笑話=a joke.  A joke may or may not be funny, but in the above case, in my opinion, is a big joke.

補充內容 (2013-1-5 04:29):
"真攪笑" on surface probably means "very funny".  However, in term of slang, it can also mean "what a joke!"

bbarying

made_in_HK 發表於 2013-1-5 03:24
"he was simply trying to help a couple wanting a child,
lesbian couple also simply want to have a  ...

2007 case 並不是很了解，也許也有另一個故事，也不想深究下去了

anyway thankyou for your remind,

很高興能跟你聊天

Topvision

睇完兩個版主, 反而產生更多疑問….
~        在美國申請救濟金, 是不是代表申請人已沒有任何存款/私己 ?
~        已分手另一女同性戀者, 是否也有簽協議書? 是否很窮, 也沒能力養小孩 ?
~        我相信人工受孕技術, 原意係幫不育夫婦, 而唔係為單性繁殖.  為何同性情侶不先與醫生商議評估是否適合作出人工受孕.  
~        另美國當地醫生, 會否合法地幫單性/同性情侶進行人工受孕 ?
~        為何捐精人/受助情侶, 不一同與醫生商議,
            一來兩方先作簡單身體檢查,
            二來醫生可作為第三者見証下簽協議書, 不是更保護自己嗎.  
            三來醫生可在體檢之後, 作出應否進行人工受孕評估.  
       這不是更好嗎 ?  為何私下解決, 避開正常途徑.
~     今日當地法庭追討捐精人, 那捐精人可不可以按先前三方簽下文件, 向原同性情侶追討損失 ?  那不是可以解決錢銀上問題嗎 ?

made_in_HK

Topvision 發表於 2013-1-5 08:46
睇完兩個版主, 反而產生更多疑問….
~        在美國申請救濟金, 是不是代表申請人已沒有任何存款/私己 ?
~        已分手 ...

1) 每個州是有不同的條件.  但我會假設申請人是要沒有任何足夠存款
2) 英語版本沒有標明女同性戀情侶已分手
3) 美國嗎... 講 FREEDOM 嗎...
4) yes
5) 身分保密?
    a) 他們可以檢查D精先
    b) 按照(當地)法律, 只有在捐精所則可以是有"第三者見証下簽協議書"的效應
    c) 他們會檢查 (但我覺得很有趣, 個男人射D精入杯內, 女同性戀情侶然後帶杯精去醫生處...)
     "這不是更好嗎 ?  為何私下解決, 避開正常途徑" 不知道, 新聞沒有講
6) 州政府要個男人比錢, 不是法庭.  

bogus_chan

回復 made_in_HK #30 的帖子

This is what in the western world called "separation of power". Judicial system is separate from the executive branch. There is no way the law can cover everything from the get go and it has to be tested from time to time.

Also, it is the transparency of the govt so that the media can report such news for you to laugh at. When did you ever hear this kind of news from China?

Topvision

回復 made_in_HK #33 的帖子

原來係咁...多謝解釋