say what? how did that happen ?

[vidcc]

source (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7024930/)

This story is a "bit hard to swallow" :helpsmili

The whole case is weird but try to not laugh too much.

It goes along the lines of a woman performing oral sex on a man, then without his knowledge using the sperm to impregnate herself, then 2 years later filed a paternity suit which she won.
the Man tried to sue for theft of his sperm and that has been rejected by the courts, however he can sue for distress.

The discussion point is:

In the highly unlikely event that a woman became pregnant in this way, and they hadn't had full sex....is the man morally responsible for the child?

In cases where two people have full sex and a baby results, both parties hold shared responsibility. It's not like we don't know how pregnancy occurs. A defence along the lines of "she told me she was on the pill" won't cut it.



For myself personally I would want to be a father to any child that held my DNA no matter how it came to be. Of course I view this hypothetically because I am a very loyal to my wife and don't approve of cheating, so for this experiment I would have to be a single man.

I do however have a problem with accountability issues here because by just having oral sex the man is not risking getting the woman pregnant (one would hope he at least returned the favor)

The problem is also one of who should pay for the child if the mother can't and the father is not responsible because he didn't have full sex ...the state? (please bear in mind I believe that no child should suffer because of the irresponsible actions of their parents)


I guess this is a lesson for any single person or married person that strays..... THINK WITH YOU BRAIN FIRST...your dick second.

[bigboab]

I cant comment. I never saw 'Deep Throat'. :rolleyes:

[hobbes]

I fail to see how the man is legally liable for the child.

If I give my sperm to the sperm bank and the clinic gives it out to needy customers, do I have to pay child support?

This seems to be another case where a jury rules for the child and misses the actual fact that legally, he has no responsibility to the child.

As technically difficult as it seems, imagine that the man, while performing oral sex on the woman, captured an ovum. He took it to the lab and using his own sperm created a test-tube baby. The baby was implanted in another woman and when the child was born, he sued the original woman for child support.

[vidcc]

sperm banks are different anyway because they have legally binding contracts that protect donors.... but it does raise another sidepoint that happened recently where children of sperm donors wish to know the identity of the donor.

[hobbes]

They only have those legal documents for, umm err, lawyers. In a "good faith" effort, if one is providing or releasing sperm in a manner which CANNOT cause pregnancy, then the donor is not responsible for any child that results.

When a man has a relationship with a woman and engages only in oral sex, he is saying something loud and clear: "I don't want you to get pregnant!".

Imagine if the woman had placed the semen in her lesbian roomate and SHE had become pregnant. Would you still agree he should pay child support?

The ruling of the jury says that the courts would, which is just wrong. They are acting emotionally, not logically.

[lynx]

Is this where goblin's come from? :blink:

[Everose]

:D We will see how fast they get to work on that male birth control pill now.

[hobbes]

:D We will see how fast they get to work on that male birth control pill now.

Well as we all know, we males are just talking to the ladies, then suddenly they are jamming our stuff in their throats.

What nefarious deeds they do with the "stuff".

We poor men are just victims of heartless, lustful and crazy women. :ph34r:

[Everose]

Well as we all know, we males are just talking to the ladies, then suddenly they are jamming our stuff in their throats.

What nefarious deeds they do with the "stuff".

We poor men are just victims of heartless, lustful and crazy women. :ph34r:



Yes, well... it is such a sad fate life has dealt you.... But then I have no doubt whatsoever that you are quite 'up' for it. :lol:

[sparsely]

crazy bitch should be shot.

then again, she'd probably save the bullet, kill someone else with it, and phone in a tip about whose gun it came from :dry:

[Busyman]

Juries aren't always logical and neither are dumbass judges.

Conservatives would love to blame trial lawyers but who decides if these cases go forward and how they go forward?

Judges.....

[ruthie]

This case is ridiculous, and I can't understand how this guy would be held liable for anything. He should have won his suit against her. This woman should be the only one accountable, and unfortunately, there will be issues for the kid. How dare she sue. She gives b.j. givers a bad name.

[lynx]

He tried to accuse her of stealing his sperm, but failed. It was considered to be a gift to do with as she wished.

So she impregnated herself. But at the time she did it, it was HER sperm, not his. It seems to me that his lawyers have missed this obvious defence.