She could just run to the bathroom after he gifted her.

This may explain why the relationship didn't last.

She could just run to the bathroom after he gifted her.

That's why I said subtly. I mean, I guess she could jump up without speaking, but come on! Even then, I don't see how you end up with a baby. But I guess anything's possible. Or someone's lying.

If his claim is true, and she deceptively collected it, he didn't give it to her. Those are the words I'm going by, and I don't see the grey area there.

I do, depending on how she came to be in possession of it. If it was deposited by him, with her, I can't see that she deceptively collected it, because he willing engaged in the act with her. Granted, if she did secretly impregnate herself with it, she used it more, and in ways that differed from what he expected, after he assumed she was done with it. Don't get me wrong. I think if she did this, it was reprehensible. I still don't see why the child should suffer. And I do think that his suit should go forth.

Yeah, I'd like to know more about the method. If there weren't condoms involved, I'm imagining, "Excuse me, but I have to go spit in a turkey baster."

If it was deposited by him, with her, I can't see that she deceptively collected it, because he willing engaged in the act with her.

He deposited it in her mouth. No ovaries in there. Just by engaging in oral sex, I don't think that implies the level of responsibility you think accrues with sexual intimacy.

If it was deposited by him, with her, I can't see that she deceptively collected it, because he willing engaged in the act with her

Okay, but what I'm saying is that if she deceptively collected it, he didn't give it to her, and she's not the owner.

That's what I don't think is grey.

I don't have enough facts to think up scenarios that are kinda like his version, or kinda like hers. So I'm going with a) he was right and b) she was right.

If she did what he alleges, it was morally reprehensible, and maybe there even should be penalties exacted against her. Why should the child give up the right to parental support?

Why should the man be liable for the support of a child? If it is as reported, how is this situation any different from her going down to a sperm bank and making a withdrawal (except that she obtained her sample unethically)? Sperm donors are not liable for support. The woman takes full responsibility for raising the child with out any financial support from the donor in that case.

I still don't see why the child should suffer.

She's a doctor. The child's not at risk of growing up poor. S/he's at risk of having a batshit crazy mother with no sense of ethics, but s/he won't starve.

I don't see how any argument can be made that sperm ejaculated into a condom has been "given" to the other party to do with as s/he chooses. The whole point of a condom is to prevent that kind of transfer of ownership.

To elaborate on DX's point, and my point about kleenex in the trash, I can totally imagine a new, gymnastic form of extortion -- because, I mean, if you're gonna dig through trash, you might as well dig through the trash of really rich people, right?

The number of people who have babies for a wrong reason -- to save a marriage, to "have something of my own," "because all my friends are doing it". It's not that much of a stretch for the truly scummy of this earth to achieve pregnancy in order to cash in in court.

I re-read the article and there's no mention of a condom. I'm having trouble imagining the alleged scenario without it, but that's my limitation.