Contract? They don't care about no stinkin' contract:

The three-judge panel ruled Thursday that the deal between Joel McKiernan and Ivonne Ferguson -- in which McKiernan donated his sperm and would not be obligated to pay any support -- was unenforceable because of "legal, equitable and moral principles."

Despite an agreement that appeared to be a binding contract, the father is obligated to provide financial support, the court decided.

"It is the interest of the children we hold most dear,"' wrote Senior Judge Patrick Tamalia.

This is nothing new. The basic argument is that someone has to help pay for the child (since the mother can't) and since the father is around, he's nominated for the job. While it seems unfair to the child that he not be afforded the income of two parents, a contract is a contract is a contract in my view.

One ethics professor in the article suggests that this could have repercussions for anonymous donors through clinics. Many feminists don't have a problem with the complete double-standard here because sperm donors are essential to a woman's right to get pregnant without needing a father. But when the mother realizes that she made a mistake and needs some financial help, they're perfectly willing to turn around and argue that it's all about the child instead of anonymous donations, where it's all about the mother.

The article is poorly written, though. The mother suggests that there was no contract, but the article says that the contract was found to be void. So I'm not sure if the existence of the contract is the subject of the debate or whether it's legality is. It appears, if I'm reading the article correctly, that the court basically said that it didn't care if there was a contract or not because the contract would be void.

Regardless, I've read cases where live sperm donors have had their contracts nullified by the courts and I have yet to read of a case where the contract was upheld.

[via Matt Margolis]