Only In America.....

08-03-2005, 15:48

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."

TheBlueRaja · 08-03-2005, 15:52

That sucks

punky · 08-03-2005, 15:55

If that is true, it is absolutely dispicable on the woman's part, but she is denying it, and saying it was the result of conventional sex. I am suprised the Guardian never said that

In that article though, it says that Irons agreed with Phillip's version of events?

I can quite easily imagine that happening here, and not just in the US.

08-03-2005, 15:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja

That sucks

Oh, oh

I'm looking over a metaphorical shoulder..... surely Nug can't be far away.

Anyway I didn't believe this story. Thought it was tongue in cheek (or something)

philip.j.fry · 08-03-2005, 15:57

Utter madness, I bet he was blown away when he heard the news. Really brightened up my day though

gazzae · 08-03-2005, 15:57

I find that story very hard to swallow.

TheBlueRaja · 08-03-2005, 16:11

Quote:

there was no agreement that the original deposit [sic] would be returned upon request.

What a great come-back though..

danielf · 08-03-2005, 16:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by gazzae

I find that story very hard to swallow.

That bloke on the other hand must be spitting mad...

TheBlueRaja · 08-03-2005, 16:14

You would have thought she would have taken it on the chin.

Russ · 08-03-2005, 17:38

What a load of gobbledegook.

allieyoung666 · 08-03-2005, 20:18

#oh well I suppose that is a new way of wanting to get pregnant, I bet the poor guy never even knew he had that one comming HA!!!!

TheBlueRaja · 08-03-2005, 20:21

Truth is - i bet she couldnt give a ....

allieyoung666 · 08-03-2005, 20:26

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

08-03-2005, 22:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by allieyoung666

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

That sounds like an excuse.

Having once (many years ago) been in a situation where I thought the decision had been taken out of my hands, I know how disturbing that feels.

I can understand that the law-makers never envisaged such a situation ocurring - I think there's a few novellists currently quietly (or maybe not so quietly) cursing they hadn't thought of that as a plot line.

What she did was clearly a deception, and as such she should shoulder the full responsibility for her actions.
Having said that, the child that has resulted from her despicable action is not to blame, and there is no reason why it should suffer for the sins of the mother.

Hopefully the (reluctant) parents and courts will find a balanced solution. It being in the USA I doubt it.

Seti · 09-03-2005, 00:24

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