|
|
Thursday, February 24, 2005
|
|
INTERESTING, VERY INTERESTING
I didn't really want to get back into abortion posts quite yet, but I did find an article that allows me to ask some questions of my female readership that I've waited my entire life to ask.
First, some backround.
As it happens, there's this guy in Chicago who allowed some broad to blow him. Pretty nice of him, huh? Well, not exactly, it turns out that she saved his "creamt center" to get herself knocked up, waited two years and decided to sue. The gentleman in question decided to sue for "cum theivery." Pretty ridiculous, I'll grant you. But it does raise some interesting questions.
Here's the backround story.
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."
Class, I think we'll have to examine this story point by point until we can examine the larger issues.
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.
By any reasonable person's definition, that is absolutely fraud! Come on ladies, I think we can all admit the whole point of a blowjob is the avoidance of pregnancy. You can spit or swallow, or whatever.....we don't really care. But to use our seed to get knocked up without even fucking you is certainly fraud. If nothing else, this bitch is having her cake and eating it too. Or going to heaven without dying. You pick the analogy.
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.
I wouldn't just be feeling like I'm trapped in a nightmare in those circumstances, I'd be fucking well convinced of it!
Look, I'm pretty well schooled in "the birds and the bees." I know how the process works. But never, and I mean never did sex ed class address the relationship between a broad's gullet and her ovaries. Not ONCE!
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.
Apparently, it was "bad enough" to seek child support fot, though, was it?
And THAT is my problem.
As I've written at length about before, I'm all for women's rights. I'd do virtually anything to support the right to abortion.
But, as you might have expected, there's an "on the other hand" coming. You're right.
There is one thing that has always bothered me greatly about a "woman's right to choose." That would be the rights of the father, or more exactly, the lack thereof. Under current law, a man's "right to choose" basically extends to not getting naked with a woman. After that son, you're fucked.
In my last year of high school, I witnessed a great case example of this. There was a couple in Quebec, not a couple so much as people who dated and fucked on occasion. She got knocked up snd waited a good long time before saying anything about it. In this case, he sued her to stop the abortion that she had planned. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, which he was laughed out of.
So, I'll get to my question, that I'm sure will annoy my female readers to no end: if you have the right to something, do you not also have the responsibility to deal with the consequences?
Let me be clear, I'm not talking about a case where a guy walks out on his wife and 4 kinds. Nor am I discussing a case of a "committed relationship" with a kid that dosen't work out. Here's what I'm discussing, let's assume that you have a wild weekend of monkey-fucking with someone you barely know. Let's further assume that you bubble her up.
As current law stands, you're fucked.
If you decide that you really want the kid, even offering to take full custody, she can still abort. But if you decide that you really don't need kids - even if you were tricked into the pregnancy in the first place - You're doubly fucked.
Not only does this approach, codified by law, undermine the rights of men, it further subjugates women. Women currently enjoy all of the rights of child bearing, yet are subject to none of the responsibilities. Doesn't this make anyone just a little bit insane?
Let's remove the emtional button pusher word of "baby" out of the mix. Let's assume that a woman walks into a Chrysler dearlership and picks out a siny new Cadalliac. We'll also assume that the boyfiend has declared his hatred for new cars all the way through their relationship. If she bought a Cadilliac on your credit car without your knowledge, not only would you get your money back, you'd get to see her go to jail.
Replace the word "Cadilliac" with "baby" and the circumstances change dramatically. Just by switching those two words, you switch the entire burden of responsibility. All of a sudden, you suffer the consequences of her decisions. Can someone please explain to me how, precisely, this works?
As things stand, there is currently a "right" to choose. Therefore, there is a "right" to motherhood. There is, however, no "right" to fatherhood. There's just a responsibility to subsidize motherhood.
Christ, I wish that I could come up with a racket that good.
PermalinkLabels: I Fought The Law
|
|
|
| |
