I'm not a lawyer, but it strikes me that the recent sperm theft trial has possible implications for the abortion issue.
Phillips alleges that he and Irons, who practices internal medicine, never had intercourse during their four-month affair, although they did have oral sex three times.His suit contends that Irons, without his knowledge, kept some of his semen and used it to impregnate herself. ...
But the judges agreed with the lower court's decision to dismiss fraud and theft claims against Irons.
They agreed with Irons' lawyers that she didn't steal the sperm.
"She asserts that when plaintiff 'delivered' his sperm, it was a gift -- an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee," the decision said. "There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request."
Most pro-choicers say that the mother has a right to an abortion because the baby is inside her and entirely dependent on her, but perhaps the "irrevocable transfer" argument is valid here as well. I suppose the objection would be that egg and sperm don't change from being "property" to being a "person" until the spatial location of the result of their combination changes, so there's no "person" to be the recipient of the "irrevocable transfer"... but what about the father? Maybe a father could argue that when the mother had sex with him she irrevocably transferred her egg into their joint possession.
Or even her entire womb! After all, there's no "I" in uterus.
If they were engaging in oral sex, souldn't he kind of noticed that she was saving some?
His suit would make more sense if it was just to not pay the child support she is demanding from him because she secretly impregnanted herself with out knowledge.
Men have no "reproductive rights", only reproductive responsibilities. Both the life of the child, and the father's obligation to it are left ENTIRELY in the mother's hands. That smells like sex discrimination to me.
Marty: No no, you misunderstand! It's not "discrimination" when white males are hurt, it's "justice".
MW: White males aren't the only guys affected.
"She asserts that when plaintiff 'delivered' his sperm, it was a gift -- an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee,"
Stand-up comics are going to have a great time with this.
It's the gift that keeps on taking, year after year, until it turns 18.
Guess what I got you for your birthday, honey?
Guess he should've made sure she swallowed. ;o)
Now my real response... How absurd that this man has to pay child support for a child that he didn't help "create" in the traditional sense of the word! I think it's ridiculous that the judge ordered him to pay and this deceitful woman got no punishment for her actions. Her mouth isn't a sperm bank, she just used it that way. Isn't that violating some law? For her to do this without his knowledge, let alone his consent is just wrong on soooo many levels. They never even had intercourse, but her and that judge sure screwed him good. What gets me is not only did she save his sperm and use it to get impregnated, but then she turns around and sues him for support?!?! 'Sorry dude, I just needed your genes to get your green' - Isn't this a form of identity theft? When I first read this story, before it went to court, I thought there was no way they could side with this sneaky broad. Oh, but I forget the times we live in these days. Unreal.
An aside to Marty - You are totally correct in your thinking and it's a shame that so many men get the short end of the stick when it comes to their children or an unwanted (by mom or dad) pregnancy. Before I met my husband, his younger (ex-)girlfiend got pregnant and decided that she didn't want the baby, even though he did. She wouldn't even entertain the notion of having the baby and then giving it to him, since he wanted it and could well afford to raise the child. Her decision cost her the child, the relationship and the wonderful man that I'm now married too. We had a son together and I'm thankful everyday that I was able to give him that which she denied him.
Michael - Justice, LOL! Yeah, that's the truth too. Each participant contributes half of the whole and I don't think just because the woman's body is the incubator, that the father shouldn't, in the very least, have a say. The problem is all these selfish women who think it's all about them and their bodies and their babies. Hello, you couldn't have a baby without a man (even if you go to a sperm bank), so wouldn't it be common sense to involve the father and have his input? Oh, wait, I forgot, common sense is dead in the world.
Oh gawd, we're all doomed.
This wouldn't be an issue if unmarried women were unable to use the legal system to get men to pay child support, and if the men had no legal claim to the children.
Nevertheless, that kid is his, and it isn't the kid's fault that the mom is psycho. I hope he is able to father the kid at least to give the kid a sane parent.
The lesson; Men, if you don't want to pay for a kid you or you don't want your kid killed, don't have sex until you are married. Then marry a GOOD woman. hint: many of the GOOD ones don't want to have sex until they are married either.
Hi,
Is there a way of fowarding to me the origional document that contained that excert ...or... of letting me know where you are sourcing from... I am a College student who need to debate the Planned Parenthood v. Casey Issue... Thank you!