Another reason to want girls to swallow

[slickpoppa]

web page (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050224/D88F19S80.html)

CHICAGO (AP) - An appeals court said a man can press a claim for emotional distress after learning a former lover had used his sperm to have a baby. But he can't claim theft, the ruling said, because the sperm were hers to keep.

The ruling Wednesday by the Illinois Appellate Court sends Dr. Richard O. Phillips' distress case back to trial court.

Phillips accuses Dr. Sharon Irons of a "calculated, profound personal betrayal" after their affair six years ago, saying she secretly kept semen after they had oral sex, then used it to get pregnant.

He said he didn't find out about the child for nearly two years, when Irons filed a paternity lawsuit. DNA tests confirmed Phillips was the father, the court papers state.

Phillips was ordered to pay about $800 a month in child support, said Irons' attorney, Enrico Mirabelli.

Phillips sued Irons, claiming he has had trouble sleeping and eating and has been haunted by "feelings of being trapped in a nightmare," court papers state.

Irons responded that her alleged actions weren't "truly extreme and outrageous" and that Phillips' pain wasn't bad enough to merit a lawsuit. The circuit court agreed and dismissed Phillips' lawsuit in 2003.

But the higher court ruled that, if Phillips' story is true, Irons "deceitfully engaged in sexual acts, which no reasonable person would expect could result in pregnancy, to use plaintiff's sperm in an unorthodox, unanticipated manner yielding extreme consequences."

The judges backed the lower court decision to dismiss the fraud and theft claims, agreeing with Irons that she didn't steal the sperm.

"She asserts that when plaintiff 'delivered' his sperm, it was a gift - an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee," the decision said. "There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request."

Phillips is representing himself in the case. He could not be reached for comment Thursday.

"There's a 5-year-old child here," Mirabelli said. "Imagine how a child feels when your father says he feels emotionally damaged by your birth."

[tdarko]

this scares me /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[wayabvpar]

Best to give her a gift across her brow.

[Prof. Chaos]

this is the most ridiculous thing I have read in 10 years.

[DemonDeac]

thats some f'ed up [censored] right there

[mmbt0ne]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
Mirabelli said. "Imagine how a child feels when your father says he feels emotionally damaged by your birth."


[/ QUOTE ]

Says the woman representing a bitch who had to steal sperm in order to have a baby and then hold it against the unwilling father. Honestly, everyone knows it's impossible to get pregnant through oral sex, so any child that results from the actions of a single person using strictly oral sex, should not be eligible for child support. Honestly, if she tied him down and road his dick until he cummed in her, (assuming he wanted sex, but not to cum in her) could he be liable for child support then too?

[Voltron87]

How are they going to explain this to the kid?

[ilya]

Does this remind anyone else of that Immortal Technique song? I never figured this would actually happen though.

[The-Matador]

American courts are so godamn stupid. The labyrinthine common law down there makes every court its own master. This would have been dealt with much more reasonably here in Canada.

It's a simple conversion. It wasn't a gift, she should be liable for damages, and he should not be liable for support, end of story.

[Prof. Chaos]

[ QUOTE ]
This would have been dealt with much more reasonably here in Canada.

[/ QUOTE ] This is now the most ridiculous thing I have read.

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a simple conversion. It wasn't a gift, she should be liable for damages, and he should not be liable for support, end of story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Conversion??? He didn't own it once it left his body. And exactly what damages should she be liable for? Damage to what? His man-chowder?

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
He didn't own it once it left his body.

[/ QUOTE ]
What makes you say this? Are you implying that she owns it? How?

[[censored]]

[censored] bitches man

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
And exactly what damages should she be liable for? Damage to what?

[/ QUOTE ]

i'll got out on a limb and suggest damages for his "emotional distress".

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you implying that she owns it? How?

[/ QUOTE ]

possession.

[Shajen]

I'd pursue this to the highest courts.

Then, after I won, I'd sue her for emotional damages and the return of the $800 a month.

Crazy bitch. I feel really badly for the child. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This would have been dealt with much more reasonably here in Canada.

[/ QUOTE ] This is now the most ridiculous thing I have read.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Because you know what you're talking about.

Americans ... sigh.

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
American courts are so godamn stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

as a generalization this is wrong, but we know you are dumb and envious.

[tdarko]

are you defending her? b/c if you are then that makes you seriously [censored] up.

[Prof. Chaos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This would have been dealt with much more reasonably here in Canada.

[/ QUOTE ] This is now the most ridiculous thing I have read.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Because you know what you're talking about.

Americans ... sigh.

[/ QUOTE ] You do realize that one American equals 10 Canadians, right?

[Edge34]

This is simply ricockulous.

How in the HELL did any court actually find that HE owes 800 bones a month to a child he had no idea he was going to father??!!

Guess now you've gotta make sure to tell every girl who gives you a BJ that she has to sign a waiver saying that she won't use your jizz to get pregnant and screw you over for child support...

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
American courts are so godamn stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

as a generalization this is wrong, but we know you are dumb and envious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, no, as a generalization it is accurate. American courts are just wretched when it comes to tort law. It's why your President (ugh) wants tort reform. It's why they aren't cited very often internationally as a good source of common law. Basically, one can find "good" authority for almost anything in the US, and you have an extremely incompetent pool of judges on the whole.

I'm sorry if this offends your American "we are the best at everything" sensibilities, but your courts are a joke. Bad judges, bad counsel, poor ethics, a bad body of case law, and no organization.

Every time I have to litigate in the US (except in Delaware) I get ready for months, if not years, of total unremitting idiocy. I haven't been dissapointed yet.

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This would have been dealt with much more reasonably here in Canada.

[/ QUOTE ] This is now the most ridiculous thing I have read.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Because you know what you're talking about.

Americans ... sigh.

[/ QUOTE ] You do realize that one American equals 10 Canadians, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only when the measure is "military dead in idiotic wars", and even then the number is more like 1 to 1000.

Go wave your flag somewhere else. This is a thread about the law, and your patriotic idiocy is pointless. I'm not saying what I am saying because I hate America. I'm saying it because it's true.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
American courts are so godamn stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

as a generalization this is wrong, but we know you are dumb and envious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, no, as a generalization it is accurate. American courts are just wretched when it comes to tort law. It's why your President (ugh) wants tort reform. It's why they aren't cited very often intetnationally as a good source of common law. Basically, one can find "good" authority for almost anything in the US, and you have an extremely incompetent pool of judges on the whole.

I'm sorry if this offends your American "we are the best at everything" sensibilities, but your courts are a joke. Bad judges, bad counsel, poor ethics, a bad body of case law, and no organization.



[/ QUOTE ]

Compared the world as a whole, American courts are far from a joke. Could they be better? Yes, but you are being overly dramatic.

[ArchAngel71857]

[ QUOTE ]

Guess now you've gotta make sure to tell every girl who gives you a BJ that she has to sign a waiver saying that she won't use your jizz to get pregnant and screw you over for child support...

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean you don't already? Then you are asking for a world of hurt, my friend?

-AA

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
are you defending her? b/c if you are then that makes you seriously [censored] up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Christ. No, I'm not defending her. What she did was obviously wrong and stupid and blah blah blah. I was just responding to the statement that this was conversion. It isn't. If this woman committed a tort, it was intentional infliction of emotional distress, not conversion.

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
It's why your President (ugh) wants tort reform.

[/ QUOTE ]

nada -&gt; try damage caps and expansive federal preemntion to lower litigation based costs for two primary constituencies: coprorate america (via class actions) and doctors (dmaage caps).


[ QUOTE ]
It's why they aren't cited very often intetnationally as a good source of common law.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm, thanks for proving my prior point re: your intellgence, i wonder why this might be in the insatc nes where it is true (think precedential value). And further, your above statement certainly isn't true with respect to water, constituational and IP law in newly developing nations or areas where these bodies of law are relatively nascent.

[The-Matador]

Tort reform is not really about class actions, though it is about damage caps to some degree.

As for emerging bodies of law, EVERYONE is "good" precedent on those since it's hard to find cases. The point is that this is a tort case, and the rest of the world looks at recent US tort law with barely concealed contempt. When people like Cardozo were doing the thinking, the US was internationally respected and its common law was gold. Now it's more like tin.

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that this is a tort case, and the rest of the world looks at recent US tort law with barely concealed contempt. When people like Cardozo were doing the thinking, the US was internationally respected and its common law was gold. Now it's more like tin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Got a point there. Tort law in the US is pretty silly.

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
Tort reform is not really about class actions

[/ QUOTE ]

OK (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33211-2005Feb17.html) Didn't Bush sign a tort reform bill on feb 18, 2005?




[ QUOTE ]
As for emerging bodies of law, EVERYONE is "good" precedent on those since it's hard to find cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

not really, and that why U.S. law, especially the 3 areas I specifically identified, is looked upon favorably.


[ QUOTE ]
and the rest of the world looks at recent US tort law with barely concealed contempt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even assuming this is true, to quote miles davis "so what". There is a great deal of reciprocity on this issue.

But lets cut through the veil of your overly-broad generalization and specifically get into some specifics, noting at the outset that many differences in "law" reflects "value" judgments heavily influenced by a particular culture's preferences and biases. Its one thing to identify poor reasoning, its another to suggest that you are critical of a tort system that favors labor or corporations or the wealthy or the poor. Law is the imposition of the prevailing political will, and while less so in the tort setting, nonetheless still true.