Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja

That sucks :rofl:

Originally Posted by gazzae

I find that story very hard to swallow.

Originally Posted by allieyoung666

Yeah but she must have wanted a kid or she would not have done it!

Originally Posted by Seti

How on earth can anyone place a judgement on the head of this woman ? Ok her act may have been terrible and awful for the somewhat bemused father. But there are millions of women desperate for children who use turkey basters and all sorts of other methods to conceive.

Originally Posted by Seti

I want children. I may not stoop to that level but try being a woman when your clock is ticking fast and see how you cope.

Sian

Originally Posted by Seti

How on earth can anyone place a judgement on the head of this woman ? Ok her act may have been terrible and awful for the somewhat bemused father. But there are millions of women desperate for children who use turkey basters and all sorts of other methods to conceive.

I want children. I may not stoop to that level but try being a woman when your clock is ticking fast and see how you cope.

Sian

Originally Posted by Seti

How on earth can anyone place a judgement on the head of this woman ? Ok her act may have been terrible and awful for the somewhat bemused father. But there are millions of women desperate for children who use turkey basters and all sorts of other methods to conceive.

I want children. I may not stoop to that level but try being a woman when your clock is ticking fast and see how you cope.

Sian

Originally Posted by danielf

<snip>
She actively took steps to get pregnant without him knowing, and now she expects him to pay for it. I sincerely hope he wins the case for psychological damage, and wins a great deal more than he has to pay in child support.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

I don't see that he has to gain punitive damages against her to 'win'.

While I agree he will have been considerably upset by the whole matter, people seem to find it only to easy to suffer irreparable psychological damage when there is someone to sue.

Originally Posted by punky

<snip>If what is said that happened to him, happened to me, it would scar me for life against other relationships with women.

Even just reading it scares the hell out of me.<snip>

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

I don't see that he has to gain punitive damages against her to 'win'.

While I agree he will have been considerably upset by the whole matter, people seem to find it only to easy to suffer irreparable psychological damage when there is someone to sue.

Originally Posted by danielf

<snip> Don't you think she should take responsibility for her actions, rather than sue the father, and expect him to pay for her willful actions?<snip>

Originally Posted by danielf

After she went through considerable effort getting pregnant without him knowing. (Keep the semen in your mouth, stick it in the freezer, and then get pregnant through artificial insemination)

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

Indeed I do. And I think her taking FULL (financial) responsibility for the child she bore would be taking full responsibility.

The 'father' did not have to sue her in return, but it's legally a manoeuvre to ensure that if she were to win the paternity suit the he'd have something to fight back with.
And the only ones who are really getting richer are the lawyers.

Originally Posted by Debsy42

:help: I would like a baby sometime soon (so nobody can say they weren't warned ;) )

Originally Posted by Earl of Bronze

Run Scooby, run..... :angel:

Originally Posted by Debsy42

:help: I would like a baby sometime soon (so nobody can say they weren't warned ;) )

Originally Posted by Seti

Oi Debsy I was first !! :D

*Sianie eyes up the blokeys available on board ::luv:

Hmmmmmmmmmm

:naughty:

:Sprint:

Originally Posted by Seti

Oi Debsy I was first !! :D

*Sianie eyes up the blokeys available on board ::luv:

Hmmmmmmmmmm

:naughty:

:Sprint:

Originally Posted by Russ D

I'm not that far down the road..... :D

And I make mega cute babies:D

Originally Posted by altis

Only in America? - not quite!

I remember a case in the news maybe a year ago when the Child Support Agency successfully won a case for maintenance against an unwitting father. I can't remember the details - I think he claimed that she had told him that she was on the pill.

Originally Posted by http://www.ccli.org/contraception/pill.shtml

Between 1.9% and 18.1% of women will experience an unplanned pregnancy in the first year of using the Pill.6

Originally Posted by Russ D

I'm not that far down the road..... :D

Originally Posted by punky

Thats another scary thought. If a pill has a 99% effective rate, then considering there is probably 100 couples using it right now, one of them is likely to fail. If you have sex twice a week, then within a year you might get pregnant.. :erm:



:disturbd:

Originally Posted by punky

Thats another scary thought. If a pill has a 99% effective rate, then considering there is probably 100 couples using it right now, one of them is likely to fail. If you have sex twice a week, then within a year you might get pregnant.. :erm:

Originally Posted by andyl

Quick reminder of a few helpful brand names to those frightened males out there too: Durex, Jiffy, Mates.....

Originally Posted by Debsy42

With the pill conditions like tummy upsets can affect it and also certain antibiotics so thats why it's recommended to use other methods of contraception at the same time

Originally Posted by altis

It's okay - methink-s punky's got it covered ;)

Originally Posted by Flubflow

It does rather amaze me, considering the 99% annual effectiveness of the pill, how so many more than 1% of women on the pill seem to have these "surprise" babies (based on a lot of couples that I know of). Someone must be lying and it's not the pharmacutical companies.

Originally Posted by greencreeper

I guess it's easy done though - you're half-asleep and instead of the pill you take one of the dog's worming tablets without knowing :shrug: Or you just "forget" and the next thing you know, triplets - are you likely to mention to your partner/husband that it's all your fault? :no:

Originally Posted by punky

AFAIK from what my ex told me, If you miss one day, you can take it as soon as you remember, continute with your dose and and you should be OK.

Originally Posted by punky

AFAIK from what my ex told me, If you miss one day, you can take it as soon as you remember, continute with your dose and and you should be OK.

Originally Posted by greencreeper

One of the many, many advantages of being gay is that you don't have to worry about female anatomy, including pregnancy :p:

Originally Posted by punky

True... but don't you have like a 50 times increased disk of contracting HIV? :erm:

I can't remember the exact figure but something like that. Condoms aren't totally infallible either :erm:

Originally Posted by andyl

From today's Guardian Legal pages:

"This item comes with a warning. It is legally fascinating and full of human emotion but not without its distasteful elements. It's about a new way of becoming a father, US-style. Here it is. Two doctors in Illinois have oral sex. Afterwards, Dr Sharon Irons, without telling Dr Richard Phillips, keeps the semen she took in orally and uses it to get pregnant. Two years later she brings a paternity suit against the unwitting sap, and wins a court order that he's the father; he now has to pay $800 a month upkeep for the child. (At least Bill Clinton escaped that.)

Phillips, understandably miffed at having to support the kid without even the pleasure of having been laid, returned to court with a wheeze of his own - accusing Irons of stealing his sperm and of causing him emotional distress, for which he demanded compensation. Her secret keeping of the semen was, Phillips said, a "calculated, profound personal betrayal"; he had trouble eating and sleeping and had "feelings of being trapped in a nightmare". His case was based on the premise that she had "deceitfully engaged in sexual acts, which no reasonable person would expect could result in pregnancy, to use the plaintiff's sperm in an unorthodox, unanticipated manner yielding extreme consequences".

Last week, an Illinois appeal court turned down his accusation of theft on her part and agreed with Irons's argument that, when he "delivered" his sperm to her, "it was a gift, an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee. There was no agreement that the original deposit [sic] would be returned upon request." (Is that "gift" tax-deductible, I wonder?) But the court did give him the go-ahead to pursue his claim for emotional distress."