He voiced a Batman Beyond character named "Zander." That's amusing.

---

You think that's bad, try having The Hands Resist Him hanging over your headboard. One set of owners set up a motion detector camera because they convinced themselves that the figures were coming out of the painting and running around at night.

eBay also sold an allegedly haunted wine cabinet, which now has its own Web site.

---

t my diamond shoes are too damned tight

The bastards took away my music! Time to buy speakers for the iPod.

I can no longer listen to LaunchCast on my work computer. When they upgraded my equipment, they also blocked most internet radio stations. At least I can still listen to clips on Amazon, Tower, and CD Baby. I still need to shop

t /my diamond shoes are too damned tight

Edited for lack of brain fuctionality.

---

Yes, this. I just feel sorry for the child. The mother seems pretty fucked up to go to such lengths to conceive and then run the father through the ringer. That right there would tempt me to seek at least equal custody--to do what I could to insure the child's emtional well-being as best I could. Most of my sympathy in this case goes to the child.

Be sympathetic to the child if you want, but explain to me why the father should have feelings for the child other than what the average man on the street might have. Yes, the child shares some DNA with him, but the mother has to take all the responsibility for the pregnancy. The man did nothing that any reasonable person could justify as trying to ger her pregnant, or even taking the chance of accidentally impregnating her. If anything, they, as a couple, went out of their way to avoid an accidental pregnancy.

She then, without his knowledge, impregnated herself. It was an act of a single person, not a couple. It's the same as if she stole a random sperm bank sample. Quite frankly, if I were the judge, I'd take the child away from the mother, who appears to have some serious problems.

---

I'm with those that think the guy being the father falls more into coincidence land than anything else. She pretty much might as well have roofied him and stole his jizz.

In a magical world (well, it wouldn't have happened) he'd say "What? You crazy woman! Give me the child and never see it again!" But I don't think he should have any mandated responsibility, fiscal or otherwise.

---

In the Tribune article, she does contest his version of events (about the "only three blow jobs" thing). The court case was limited to determine the question: "If his version of events was true, could a lawsuit proceed?"

eta: or maybe somone who is not IANAL could phrase this better....

---

She then, without his knowledge, impregnated herself. It was an act of a single person, not a couple. It's the same as if she stole a random sperm bank sample. Quite frankly, if I were the judge, I'd take the child away from the mother, who appears to have some serious problems.

I'm with DX and ita on this.

---

Quite frankly, if I were the judge, I'd take the child away from the mother, who appears to have some serious problems.

Unless the mother is clinically diagnosed with "serious problems" that threaten her baby's health or safety, a judge will have a difficult time taking that child away. The legal default is that a child is better off with a parent or parents. The state must prove that she is an unfit mother. What she did to get pregnant is questionable, to say the least, but it wasn't criminal.

---

Caveat lector: A mother and father cannot terminate their parental rights just because they don't want a child. Their must be a place for the child to go besides the state foster care system, e.g. a family wishing to adopt. As Narrator said, it's to discourage parents from relying on the support of the state just because they changed their mind.

Good point. I was thinking of babies who are in demand. Maria, when we see articles on children who are legally free for adoption, what's the what there? I'm thinking of a feature that runs in the The Boston Sunday Globe, called "Sunday's Child" which reports on children who are in need of foster or adoptive homes. In cases where a child is legally free for adoption, is he already in the foster system, and if so, is that because of other factors?

Well, because the next logical step is, a woman pawing through the garbage of some random man she's never met, in search of a used kleenex for her impregnation purposes. I guess I'm not assuming decency so much as reasonableness.

I am unconvinced. Engaging in consensual oral sex is still a far cry from a stranger pawing through your trash unbeknownst to you. In your hypothetical case, the semen provider would have no reason to know or think that anyone would be able to gain control over the semen while it is still viable.

In the case of these two doctors, Dr. Phillips alleges he put his semen in Dr. Irons' possession via a mutual, consensual act, with knowledge that he erm...deposited it with her. Granted, if he is telling the truth, he didn't think she'd do *that* with it. I am not disputing his right to sue her for damages. If he is telling the truth, he has been violated. But engaging in consensual oral sex is still a far cry from a stranger pawing through your trash, such that you didn't even know anyone else was at all involved in the sex act or its aftermath, in the first place. Consensual sex acts involving two people involve a measure of trust. His trust was violated, and although he is arguably due legal damages, why would it follow that he is automatically free from the resonsibility that ensues when sperm fertilizes an egg.

And I don't think I can accept your analogy to rape victims -- you seem to be making a lot of assumptions to serve your analogy,

Which assumptions?

whereas the options available to rape victims make the whole situation a lot more messy than that.

I think I noted the options available to rape victims, so I'm not sure I am following you here. She has to take a responsiblity. It might not be the same ones, but it is a fact of nature that she either has to terminate or gestate. If she chooses gestation, she has to either parent, or give the child in adoption, or otherwise find someone else to raise the child. She doesn't just get to not feed and clothe it.

Lawyeristas, (I called you lawgeekers before--I'm sorry, that's a Bronzerism), generally speaking, what happens when conception is the result of a man raping a woman? If the woman chooses to give the child in adoption, can the biological father/rapist contest? Typically, does the court ignore him?

---

It looks like the law is less interested in the rights of the bio dad, than the welfare of the child. Since the child already exists, the state then goes and finds the nearest deep pockets. It's definitely unfair, but the clear priority is that somebody's got to be responsible for the child, and the state has decided that the kid will be better off with two providing parents. Better also than having the state pay for the kid.

I would presume the precedent for this is based in law derived from one night stands and affairs and unmarried moms - and that's what is being carried over to these rare stolen-jizz scenarios.

---