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?

---

If I were the judge in this case, I think I would make the man pay child support once it was determined that the child was biologically his. Without some written waiver regarding child support on the woman's part (which might not be legal anyway), I don't think the court wants to be in the business of hearing evidence on how the woman actually got pregnant. It's too hard to determine how it actually happened.

Short of having the syringe (or whatever) she used, there's just no way to know for sure how she got pregnant. All the court really knows is that there is a child who biologically belongs to the father.

If the whole thing was on videotape, as a judge, I wouldn't order child support, but short of that, I think society can't allow men to use "she stole my sperm" as an excuse not to pay child support. It's too easy to say and too hard to prove.

---

That being said, I find this whole thing deeply, deeply sad.

I'm with Robin and Dawn. Plus I find the whole debate squicksome, but that's because it's pushing my "Why do so many have to try so hard to get pregnant when others get pregnant so easily just using bad judgment?" button.

---

One of the Oscar presenters should give me the Dyson vaccuum. And auction the rest off for charity.

I doubt this doctor will be able to prove his side of the story, but if he can I don't see how he can be viewed as anything more than a unwitting sperm donor.

I vaguely remember an instance on some show of a man taking his used condom in a baggie with him to avoid this sort of possibility.

---

Heh - fire eating made easy. With a priceless quote:

"I studied with a fire performer who said a really good rule is, don't do more than one stupid thing at a time,"

t eta Hi aurelia! Let me know how your soon-to-be-yours Dyson vacuum works. Lord knows the celebs don't do their own vacuuming. And now, off to enjoy Belgian beers.

---

I'm totally not going to get into the debate portion of this topic but this part of the original blurb made me wonder:

Phillips broke off the relationship when he discovered Irons had lied to him about being divorced.

I'm assuming from this that it means he discovered she was married. Which had me asking if she'd passed off the child as her husband's. In which case, this feels less like a real story and more like a Days of Our Lives episode.

---