I don't think the rape analogy really works here. There are plenty of things, reproductively, that don't give men and women the same rights, just because biology doesn't work that way. For one thing, a woman who's been raped has the choice to have an abortion. This man does not. (And yes, I know that there are way more issues in there, and that the woman would probably have to pay for the abortion, and that not everyone would make that choice, and a million other things, but what I'm trying to say is that the cases are not comparable.)
Also, if a woman gets pregnant, and she doesn't want to have a baby but the father does, his opinion matters not at all, legally, in whether she gets an abortion. (This isn't directly relevant, just in the "reproductive rights are not equivalent for men and women" vein.)
And I completely disagree with the judges "gifted" ruling. Unless the man said, "Here, have some sperm," that was not a gift.
Whoah. Donald Sutherland's in an Avengers episode.
It's Friday. It's past 5pm board time. I recommend everyone on the west coast go home, unless you're travelling my route, in which case stay at the office for an hour longer.
Because I'm outie.
You can control where, and with whom you ejaculate, and how you dispose of the semen, after the fact.
I'll remember to bring a portable incinerator with me should I ever have sex again.
I'm sorry, I still find the argument that the child is his responsibility because he should have used due diligence to prevent her from harvesting his sperm and artificially inseminating herself to be bordering on asinine. Suppose she'd tied him to the bed, raped him, and then gotten pregnant? Is he still responsible?
eta: Also, what Hil said.
Cindy, I don't buy the rape scenario you put forth. A pregnant woman isn't forced to be responsible--she can abort or give the child up for adoption. If she wants no financial reponsibility, she doesn't have to have any, rights of the child be damned.
That being said, I find this whole thing deeply, deeply sad.
All this talk is reminding me of the scene in Legally Blonde, where she argues about abandonment, or whatever.
In less confusing news, I have my ID card back! Yay!
Also, one of those links had an advertisement for conservativematch.com: For sweethearts, not bleeding hearts. It was so incredibly romantic.
Official Academy Award Nominee/Presenter gift bag
I heard about this on the radio this a.m., I wondered at the time if the celeb's actually use all the stuff they receive? I mean, there's at least a couple of week's worth of vacations besides all the other stuff. I understand that celebs wearing/using your stuff = marketing $ but still that's a lot of stuff. Do the presenters get paid scale for presenting or is the bountiful gift bag in lieu of getting paid?
One set of footprints in the sand
That's when ita was carrying YOU, J.J
BWHA!!
That being said, I find this whole thing deeply, deeply sad
Robin speaks for me.
Why won't my husband call me back? I just need one question answered. He's making me stay at work when I don't wanna be here. It's Friday I wanna go home.... whine
I'll remember to bring a portable incinerator with me should I ever have sex again.
Oh! Condoms should come with those nifty wrappers like panty liners, except ZIPlocky. Then you can like, put it one of those when you're done and dispose of it when you get home.
Ima invent that, and my commercials will be TERRIFYING.
Ima invent that, and my commercials will be TERRIFYING.
It's certainly a better invention than the "What would Jesus do?" condoms.
because you shed DNA the way you breathe
Isn't it about the financial welfare of the kid, though? Jr doesn't care where the DNA came from.
It is about the welfare for the child, and who bears responsibility for the welfare of the child. You asked where to draw the due diligence line. Without more facts in this particular case, I don't think either we draw it in this case with great precision. However, in the hypothetical case presented here, where someone harvested DNA from shed skin cells, the line is easier to draw, because a person cannot be diligent in a situation completely outside of his control, like shedding skin cells.
A person *can* exercise some diligence in disposing of semen. The question here, is how much. The judge in the case determined Irons did not take the semen from Phillips, but that he gave it to her. I don't know what he based that on, so I am not prepared to say she raided the trash, or defrauded him, (like "I just need this for an experiement") because the court ruled he could sue her for emotional damages, but not for fraud.
People are legally obligated to exercise diligence in disposing not only substances such as medical waste, batteries, waste oil from automobiles, and TV sets, but even feces and urine. Why not semen? If Irons dies tomorrow, are the tax payers of the state of Illinois responsible for this child? Should they be?
Also, if the kid gets any money from his OBC, I vote it's put into an account to fund the massive therapy s/he's gonna need when s/he learns the method of conception. Freaky shit, man.
From the Trib piece on it, it sounds just as likely that she was conceived the old fashioned way. Still, she'll need therapy for the whole ugliness of it.
For one thing, a woman who's been raped has the choice to have an abortion. This man does not. (And yes, I know that there are way more issues in there, and that the woman would probably have to pay for the abortion, and that not everyone would make that choice, and a million other things, but what I'm trying to say is that the cases are not comparable.)
I agree they are not the same thing, and allowed for the options opened to her from the beginning. I only used it as an illustration where someone both intend not to conceive, and yet did, and had to deal with a fact of biology. It is also a fact of biology, that if you can get the semen in the right place at the right time by other means, you do not need vaginal intercourse for conception.
And I completely disagree with the judges "gifted" ruling. Unless the man said, "Here, have some sperm," that was not a gift.
Was her use of it (that is, the use he alleges she made of it) unethical--immoral, even? Yes. Should he be allowed to sue her for emotional damages? Yes. Did he own it, if she assisted him in producing/harvesting it, and then he left it in her possession?
