Dad: Twins came from stolen sperm

[alp227]

A Houston man has launched a unique court battle, claiming his twin sons resulted from his sperm being stolen and taken to a Houston fertility clinic without his knowledge, Local 2 Investigates reported Tuesday.

"Actually, I couldn't believe it could be done. I was very, very devastated," said Joe Pressil, a 36-year-old telecommunications manager.

"I couldn't believe that this fertility clinic could actually do this without my consent, or without my even being there," he said.

Pressil said he hadn't considered having a family, and his religious beliefs would never allow him to visit a fertility clinic or participate in any form of artificial insemination. Yet three months after he broke up with his girlfriend, she became pregnant with his sperm at the Advanced Fertility Center of Texas on the Katy Freeway near Beltway 8.

full: http://www.click2houston.com/news/Dad-Twins-came-from-stolen-sperm/-/1735978/4810498/-/a5ypjj/-/index.html

(edited to add) Apparently those fundies who oppose ALL birth control including condoms once again show their ignorance of the flexibility of the science of sex!

[Skittles]

1. the strangest thing is

any gal wanting to multiply with a man as stupid as that guy

[Rhiannon12866]

2. +1!

Yikes! :crazy:

[Major Nikon]

13. She doesn't sound like the brightest bulb on the tree

[FreakinDJ]

14. Revenge Fertility - she is wacked in the head

Who in their right fucking mind would want to raise kids alone

[Skittles]

20. she's loco, for sure

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. So those weren't vanilla Popsicles in the freezer?

Dang.

[itsrobert]

4. Possession is 9/10th of the law.

Hasn't this guy ever watch Barney Fife/Andy Griffith?

[The Straight Story]

5. Hmmm. So should he get custody and child support in this case? OR

Since it was without his consent, should he have to pay child support at all....and if not, if a woman gets pregnant, and keeps the child, without the father's consent - should he have to pay child support?

[Angry Dragon]

6. Since when do insurance companies allow you to put your

girlfriend on your policy??
Seems like a very strange set-up

[Horse with no Name]

16. I am not sure of ALL of the companies

but I know that Lowe's does...you just pay a higher premium.

[musette_sf]

7. As consensual sex implies a freely given donation,

I think Mr Whiny here is SOL. Nothing was "stolen".

And I'm personally amazed that the little swimmers retained their robustness all the way from initial deposit, indefinite storage, the drive over to the Katy Freeway, the appointment and intake procedure, and the ultimate delivery via fertility center technology.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. I'm actually inclined to agree with you

he made the deposit, so to speak.

[Duer 157099]

12. But he made his deposit into a condom

then the girlfriend took the used condom with said deposit and deposited that at the sperm bank.

Sneaky girl, she should have to take full responsibility for those children.

[Lyric]

22. But that wouldn't be in the best interests of the children.

As unfair as it might seem, the best interests of the kids will ALWAYS trump the parents, from a legal standpoint. The kids didn't do anything wrong. Why should they be denied a father's parenting and financial support just because their Mom did something wrong?

So many people get pissed at unfair child custody and support arrangements, but the law isn't TRYING to be "fair". Fairness has nothing to do with it. It's all about what's best for the innocent kids, and there is no doubt that what's best for them is to be parented and supported by two parents, if at all possible.

[Duer 157099]

24. I understand. But play along with this thought experiment

Sometime in the near future cloning becomes technically feasible. (suspend scientific disbelief for a moment) You can use just a few cells, such as cheek scrapings or skin cells, to clone and produce a child.

Someone scratches you and uses that to fertilize an egg.

Who are the two parents, and are they both financially liable?

This case with the semen isn't that far from that, imho.

[Lyric]

36. Both parents would be financially liable for the child, who is blameless.

But the person who did it should also be charged with some kind of crime that we'll need to invent at the relevant time (malicious DNA theft?), and the doctor who performed the fertilization and implantation without permission from BOTH genetic donors ought to lose his license to practice medicine. At that point, there won't be many doctors willing to take that risk.

We can't stop crime, and there will always be victims. It's unfortunate and sad, but it's true. However, we can take actions to deter crime, and we can do everything we can to make sure that criminals do not gain much benefit from what they did. In the scenario above, the perpetrator who stole DNA ought to lose custody of the child as soon as it's born (unless she chooses to abort), at which point the unwilling father could place the child for adoption if he doesn't want it, or he could choose to keep it and RECEIVE child support instead of paying it.

Sound reasonable to you?

Edit: Of course, this would not apply to pregnancies that happen via normal sex. Even with condoms and birth control, pregnancy is ALWAYS a risk when people have sexual intercourse. Part of consenting to sex is consenting to that risk. Assuming that this man is telling the truth, I'd say that he consented to the risk of pregnancy when he had sex with that woman. She might have taken semen from the condom, but it's also entirely possible that the condom could have broken, or been leaky, or defective. He consented to the risk when he had sex. That's not the same thing as having someone steal your skin cells, when there's obviously no consent to the risk of pregnancy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

119. Maybe the clinic should have to pay the father's share of support

(assuming that his description of what happened is basically correct, that is).

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. Wouldn't the best interests of the children be served...

... by pinning the responsibility on the wealthiest guy around?

[Yupster]

45. That's my argument against "best interests of the child," too

It may be the best interest of the child to be financially taken care of.

But by this particular guy?

Is his money any greener than anyone else's? or the governments?

This argument is used to collect child support from men when it turns out the kid is not their's due to their wife having an affair. Ex has to pay anyway for the best interest of the child. Sometimes ex has to send check to actual dad.

It's for the best interest of the child.

BS.

My solution would be for every father and mother of illegitimate kids to pay into a government fund which would pay out an equal amount to every eligible kid.

Why should one kid get $ 300 a month and another kid get $ 30,000 a month because one mom was drunk and bedded a drunk from the bar and the other mom was drunk and bedded an NBA player.

[Pithlet]

51. They won't pay for their own kids. But they'll pay into a government fund?

:rofl:

[Bunny]

78. If a DNA test proves he's the father, why not?

:shrug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

81. Why is DNA similarity relevant to the best interests of the child? n/t

[Bunny]

82. Well, that's too stupid to respond to.

So, buh bye.

[lumberjack_jeff]

84. But the best interests of the child trumps fairness!

It's too late to invoke issues of fairness and justice now. You aren't on a slippery slope, you're in the mudhole at the bottom.

[Pithlet]

90. Yeah, because fuck the interest of kids! n/t

[Pithlet]

92. Because they have no say in how they came to be, that's why.

The grown ups that did, however, need to put their grown up pants on and stop worrying about fairness and getting back at their ex's and get over it, and if they can't then oh well, because society has done it for them. That's why child support exists and if they don't like it they can suck it up. It's very likely not going anywhere. This is fortunately an academic discussion.

[apocalypsehow]

106. You know, anti-choicers make this kind of "argument" all the time. They just change the terms. n/t.

[Pithlet]

135. Well, I don't know about you, but there's a good reason I'm not an anti-choicer.

Many reasons in fact. One of them is the fact is I think their arguments are bunk. So, :shrug: "They just change the terms." Right. So, not the same argument then.

[jberryhill]

107. +1

[Codeine]

44. Fuck that.

Seriously. Just plain fuck that.

[closeupready]

48. Completely disagree.

nt

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[apocalypsehow]

105. You know, anti-choicers make this kind of "argument" all the time. They just change the terms. n/t.

[Gormy Cuss]

123. You know, anti-choicers are talking about ova, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses.

This thread is about children.

[apocalypsehow]

133. You know, anti-choicers believe they're talking about children, too. The logic is identical.

Please try again.

[Pithlet]

137. And some children believe in Santa. What are you going to do?

Anti-choicer's arguments are predicated on their beliefs. But no one is going to deny that children are living breathing humans that exist and need food and water and shelter. There is no controversy in that, see? Where your argument fails is that children actually do exist and have needs. They've already been born. It could be argued logic may be the same. But logic runs into practicality. Sorry about that.

[Gormy Cuss]

144. The key difference is that I do not need to validate the anti-choicer illogic.

You've made a blanket statement on anti-choicer logic without providing any evidence to back it up. Perhaps it's time for you to try again.

[apocalypsehow]

151. There is no "key difference": the "illogic" is the same. The rest is just wordy non-responsiveness.

[Wait Wut]

124. Best interest of the kids?

Give them to a good home. Their mother is obviously a manipulative fruitcake that will use these kids as pawns whenever possible. Giving them to a responsible parent or parents would also remove them from the eventual trauma they'll endure when their nut mother decides to tell them the story of their conception. Which she will, I'm sure, embelish to make herself look like a martyr.

And, I disagree with your entire last paragraph, except where you say the law isn't trying to be "fair". More often than not, it's whatever is "easiest". That's not always what's best for the kids.

[Blasphemer]

58. I agree... if it happened as he says it did, he was practicing birth control

I don't think he should be held responsible. It's hard to come up with a parallel with the sexes switched that doesn't sound even more bizarre but if I were in a relationship, made it clear that I didn't want kids and practiced birth control but somehow (Dr. Murray and some propofol perhaps) had my eggs harvested and fertilized, I would not expect to be held responsible for the children created.

[jberryhill]

71. Practicing birth control is no 100% guarantee that a pregnancy will not occur

I have no opinion on the overall claim, but it is not relevant that he was using a condom.

It is certainly not relevant when condoms fail, and that is a known risk of using them.

[Blasphemer]

98. I would agree under normal circumstances

Nothing is 100% but in an extraordinary circumstance (as this would be) where fraud is allegedly involved, then it wouldn't simply be a matter of the condom failing. It might be hard to prove whether or not the child is a result of failed birth control or the fraud but if there is proof of his claim then her actions would have been the most likely reason for reproduction rather than failed birth control. I have a hard time with the idea of holding a person responsible under such circumstances. Now, his story could be completely fabricated but in theory if such a situation happened, I completely side with the defrauded partner.

[jberryhill]

99. I don't have a hard time with the fraud aspect

There are a variety of fun & games that go on with contraceptive sabotage. The bottom line for me is that one is responsible for choosing one's dance partner.

At the end of the day, it is not about "holding a person responsible". It is about the child's right to be supported by both parents.

It's not the kid's fault, that much is certain.

[Pithlet]

104. I agree. Sue the clinic for their negligence if there were any way possible his story was true

But he should still be on the hook for the child support. It isn't their fault.

[Blue_Tires]

62. I knew the stories, and used to be so paranoid that

after finishing, i'd go to the sink, rinse out the condom, THEN pour PineSol in it, then put it in the trash...

But as it stands now, this guy's "official" story reeks...Either he is trying to back out after the fact or the woman put a world-class carefully plotted con on him (with a corrupt fertility doctor) which makes him too gullible to even bed a woman to begin with...Hearing the woman's side will give a better picture

[musette_sf]

93. *Supposedly* she did.

However, basic Biology 101, and the necessary logistics to successfully execute according to the tale spun by the man, would seem to indicate that the scenario proposed by the man is, in a word, impossible.

Oh, and I still maintain that if the act is consensual, then the donation is implied. Were such a caveat as you propose to be operative, the chain of custody of the, um, deposit container, would be the responsibility of the man. If the man relinquishes custody of the container, the diversion of the deposit would be due to the man's failure to maintain the chain of custody.

[octothorpe]

32. Oh come on, if it actually went down as he claims, he isn't being "whiny" for no reason...

In fact, I'm pretty sure most people would be pretty whiny if that happened to them. However, I tend to doubt things played out as he's claiming. I'm sure once they check out the signatures and figure out the blood sample thing, it will become evident.


Maybe it's an elaborate scam on both their parts, and their real goal is to sue the fertility clinic. Although, that would mean she would be facing jail time, no? So nevermind.

[musette_sf]

94. Chances that "it actually went down as he claims"

are slim to none. So he's whiny by default.

[Dorian Gray]

120. Exactly

Fertility Clinics require consent from the father. And if you get a donation, you need to carefully document where that donation came from. You can't just bring in a sample one day and say: "HERE IT IS!"

My husband had to sign paperwork himself.

[provis99]

34. he gave his sperm to the condom, not to her.

the fact that he used a condom means he definitely did not want to donate to her.

[JoePhilly]

47. What if she bought the condom?

:shrug:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

115. Then she and Mr. condom are parents?

The company must be worried

[musette_sf]

95. Consensual congress implies donation by consent.

We actually don't know who required the barrier/container - the man, the woman, or both.

Aside from the fact that the logistics described by the man would result in a virtual impossibility of achieving the result described by the man - if he wishes to maintain exclusive control of the container and the deposit, he must exercise control of the chain of custody.

[provis99]

102. no, it doesnt.

you don't get to make law shit up just because it suits your prejudices.

[musette_sf]

109. "prejudices"?

What "prejudices" might those be?

:popcorn:

And as far as "making law sh!t up" goes, (a) do you really think that a bodily fluid donation in consensual congress is subject to a pre-schtupp agreement to be duly notarized by both parties? and (b) do you really think that the little swimmers are actually going to be viable after deposit into container; storage of container; making appt at fertility clinic; driving to fertility clinic on day of appointment; intake at fertility clinic; and the ultimate hi-tech delivery of the deposit by the fertility clinic? Somehow, I think the chances of "success" here are slim to none, even if the woman in question ran post-haste with the deposit container to her Ron Popeil Flavor Injector for quasi-immediate delivery.

Do you really believe this guy's BS story? Or do you just WANT to believe his BS story?

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pithlet]

121. Wrong. The whole bit about her duping him with a condom his his story.

Point to the part of the article where she admits she used a condom.

[musette_sf]

122. Um, it is NOT "the woman's story".

Mr Whiny is the sole claimant of that convoluted theory.

Mr Whiny's claims that the woman said or did anything is just hearsay.

The woman has, via her attorney, denied "ever taking semen from a used condom".

[apocalypsehow]

108. Quote that to us in the statutory code somewhere, please. Any random state or the Federal code will

do. Oh, and please provide a link to your cite. Thanks.

[musette_sf]

110. see reply to the other "legal beagle":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2389638&mesg_id=2395529

[apocalypsehow]

112. So, you got no cite to any statutory code or law, just another post long on snark and nada on facts.

"Legal beagle," indeed.... :rofl:

[musette_sf]

113. So cite me some code or established precedent in law

that asserts that providing all parties on the voyage are amenable to said voyage, that once the ship has sailed, the male partner maintains sole ownership of the foamy wake.

Because the way you and the other "legal beagle" are reacting to this BS story, one would think that such a code or established precedent actually exists in settled law.

I think that you both really believe that there is some kind of epidemic of female sheath-stealers out there. Is this a reaction to listening to Tom Leykis? And if so, why aren't you dudes all carrying your mini-bottle of McIlhenny's to "muddy the waters", so to speak, as Tom exhorted you to do? Then it would all be about WIN! Sheath-stealer's scheme gets foiled, AND she gets a painin' VJJ to boot.

I find it fascinating that several guys here are up in arms about some supposed "right" to man-custard custody in the context of consensual congress. Because you know as well as I do that this guy's case is going to sink faster than Kim Krapdashian's nuptials.


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[TorchTheWitch]

116. "foamy wake"

"man-custard"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Ok, seriously now. It's the man's responsibility to know what is done with his "foamy wake". If he freely relinquishes the "man-custard" to the girlfriend in the condom container it is then hers to do what she wants with it just as if he freely relinquished it to her by depositing in in her "VJJ" container.

This dude is just so full of shit.

[Warren DeMontague]

117. This is one of the best posts I've ever seen here.

You truly are a cunning linguist. :patriot:

[musette_sf]

143. As a member of the waning years of the Era of Euphemism,

I gratefully and blushingly accept the acknowledgement of this cunning stunt :blush:

[apocalypsehow]

131. I continue to ask you to provide proof for you assertion: you continue to be unable to provide it.

All the rest is an attempt at deflection and obfuscation, on your part, as you are unable to provide such evidence since such evidence does not exist.

You can stop replying any time now, as your inability to back up your assertion has been well established.

[musette_sf]

139. I'm just using common sense.

YOU are the one who seems to think that the man has some kind of de facto sole legal custody of the deposited matter, and you haven't presented anything to back such an assertion except your own strenuously offered opinion. (Such an opinion, incidentally, is also held by men who believe that they should have equal input into the disposition of a woman's unwanted pregnancy. Coincidence?)

[apocalypsehow]

148. No, you're making assertions about the law which you are then uable to back up with facts. n/t.

[apocalypsehow]

134. Just in case it's slipped your mind here is the assertion you continue to fail to provide proof for:

"Consensual congress implies donation by consent"

Now, I'm not interested in any other reply from you other than a cite to back up that assertion, or an admission that the assertion itself is untrue - which it is. Thanks.

Oh, and here's a pro tip, just for you: :rofl: is not proof or refutation of anything.

[Pithlet]

136. There's a reason men keep losing these court cases.

You and others can feel free to offer up examples that say otherwise.

[musette_sf]

140. As YOU are the person attempting to assert

that the donor has some kind of default ownership of the deposit that results from mutually agreed upon congress, I suggest that the burden of proof of such ownership in an established precedent would be incumbent upon YOU.

This is the hurdle that Mr Whiny, or Mr Whiny's counsel, will have to attempt to meet, should his ridiculous case ever make it to court.

[apocalypsehow]

149. As YOU are the person who made the original claim as to law, the burden in YOU to provide a cite or

reference to some other substantiating reference to back up that claim.

All the rest of this is simply dodging, obfuscation, and attempts to change the subject.

As I said above: since you refuse to provide the evidence to substantiate your claim (as there is no such evidence), you are free to cease replying any time now. We get it: you made a claim you cannot substantiate.

Now, either provide the evidence so requested and answer the specific question put to you, or admit you have no such evidence. Everything else you reply with in an attempt to extricate some shred of credibility from this exchange is immaterial and non responsive.

[Schema Thing]

9. There is a lot of this going on at the Super 8 on the Katy Freeway.

[Warren DeMontague]

10. Jesus

I hope they wash the sheets in hot water.

[Schema Thing]

19. ....and wring them out into a test tube?

[musette_sf]

114. nah

they just spray the room with Lysol and bleach to make you think they cleaned it

[Major Nikon]

11. If his allegations are true, it's fraud on her part

If the clinic allows such donations without the father ever being present in the clinic to verify consent, they are at least on some level partially responsible, if not complicit.

[provis99]

15. why would this woman want kids from this troll in the first place?

Other people's procreation desires mystify me.

[Angry Dragon]

18. It seems he has a good paying job

with child support it makes her life easier

[tammywammy]

17. This should be easy to settle

The clinic says they have his signature on documents. Just compare those to other documents he's signed.

[Major Nikon]

21. An easier track would be for him to explain how they got his blood sample

Assuming they actually did as they claim.

[Yupster]

46. The clinic will be fined for fraud

and he'll be hit with 18 years of chld support because it's in the best interests of the children.

[aaaaaa5a]

23. There is actually more to this story....

1) First, the clinic says they have his signed permission. Of course documents can be forged. But I guess such issues can be checked.


2) Sperm can only live outside of the body for about 2 hours. Afterwords they die. He is arguing that after sex, this woman was able to get a condom full of sperm from him, come up with an excuse to leave, get dressed, and fight traffic to get the used condom all the way over to the clinic in an 1:45 minutes? That is an impressive mad dash with a used condom in hand!


3) Every condom I have ever seen contains spermicide. This kills sperm. In that this man allegedly had no particular reason to be very careful in removing the condom when he was finished, aren't the odds of contamination pretty high? Especially for something like this?


4) Before IVF occurs, both parties must consent to an STD check. This requires blood. While it is conceivably possibly to smuggle sperm to the clinic, how did she get his blood there for the test? Furthermore even if she somehow got a vile of his blood to the clinic, how could the clinic verify it was his? There is no clinic in the country that would allow someone to take a blood test this way. Maybe the next time I am applying for a job and a drug screen is required, I will simply urinate in a cup, bleed into a beacon and then have my significant other run it down to the drug lab and just say it came from me! Yea.... I'm sure that will work!


5) He claims his girlfriend has no insurance, so he put her on his policy. What insurance allows a single man to put his girlfriend on his policy? And even if this part of the story were true, IVF isn't something that is done in a week or in just one visit. Is he arguing that he never once received anything in the mail regarding charges for something as costly as IVF until 3 months AFTER they broke up! Not even a statement verifying what the insurance company paid for and what he was responsible for? How about a prior authorization letter? Nothing? Plus according to him, office visits were paid with his bank card. Does he not check his statements?


Sorry, this story doesn't add up.

I don't buy it for one bit.

Anytime stories like this pop up, especially he/said, she/said gender battles, you always have to wait for ALL OF THE FACTS. We saw this with Duke La-cross, Kobe Bryant, DSK etc. etc. etc.

Read the above 5 statements. There is no way she could have pulled this off without his knowledge. And for anyone debating that the woman did this just for money, public reports say she is getting just 800 dollars per month in support. This means she isn't getting rich, and he was never rich to begin with. On top of that, they have joint custody of the children. So the idea that this was a "hit and run" on behalf of the woman and he is bared from his children isn't supported by facts either.


Hmm... lets just wait and see what happens when all of the facts come out.

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. From the story

An attorney representing the Advanced Fertility Center and Omni-Med Laboratories, Danny Sheena, called the lawsuit "suspect" and "disingenuous."

He admitted that some men simply don't like visiting fertility clinics, so some samples are delivered to the clinic without the man being there. He said, in this case, the specimen arrived in a cup that was sealed in a bag.

Sheena said the father had blood work performed and submitted to the clinic around the same time as the in vitro procedure. He also said the clinic has signed consent forms and information sheets from the father.

"That's the procedure of the clinic. Those procedures were followed and we did obtain a consent from the donor as well as his blood sample."

Sheena said he couldn't say for certain whether the father had ever actually been to the clinic and it's possible that the forms could have been fabricated by the mother.

Nothing in the clinic's statement is inconsistent with anything he said. No one at the clinic is required to have a face to face conversation with the donor. "some men simply don't like visiting fertility clinics"? Too bad. If they're unwilling to visit the clinic, then they don't have both feet into the idea of being a father.

Jesus. You can't buy a car by proxy. Choice is fine, provided you're not making someone else's choices.

[treestar]

52. +1

This is not something to judge on immediately.

[Ohio Joe]

25. So... He is ok with pre-marital sex but not a fertility clinic?

WTF religion is this guy?

[xfundy]

28. They all have their hypocrites.

In fact, the hypocrites make up the majority of any religion.

[LanternWaste]

88. I imagine hypocrites make up the majority of the human population

I imagine hypocrites make up the majority of the human population, regardless of religion, imaginary philosophies or magic-thinking political affiliations... :shrug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

29. Maybe he's not okay with being a dad. Isn't that acceptable? n/t

[Ohio Joe]

31. Yeah but...

That has nothing to do with my question. I never heard of any religion that allows pre-marital sex but forbids fertility clinics.

[liberalhistorian]

42. Then he shouldn't have sex if that's the way he feels.

Unless one or both parties are permanently "fixed" or the woman is beyond menopause, ANY act of sex can possibly result in pregnancy; it doesn't matter how much "birth control" is used. There is no completely foolproof method of birth control other than abstinence. If a man doesn't want to have children, then he shouldn't have sex. Period. HE is equally responsible for any resulting pregnancy.

And as for this guy, there are too many holes in his story (that others here have already pointed out) to make it truly plausible. He just changed his mind after the fact, that's all.

[lumberjack_jeff]

54. Let me get this straight.

If he has sex, he accepts the consequences. It doesn't matter if he wore a condom, his partner forged his signature and blood testing, took the semen sample to a no-questions-asked (of the dad) fertility clinic and charged his insurance with IVF after the relationship had ended? Is that what you mean by words like "choice" and "responsibility"?

Neither you nor I are qualified to judge his story. I think it's noteworthy that the clinic admits they've never seen the guy, and that they often don't "because clinics make some guys uncomfortable". How would the director of the clinic know that the guys are uncomfortable if he never sees them?

[liberalhistorian]

60. Basically yes, if you have sex, you accept

the consequences. Period. I am sick to death of men whining about being "tricked" into pregnancy and, therefore, they shouldn't have to take responsibility, when THEY ALSO HAD SEX AND PREGNANCY CAN BE A RESULT OF SEX REGARDLESS OF BIRTH CONTROL. Period. I repeat, if you don't want kids, DON'T HAVE SEX. It's that fucking simple. (pun intended).

And no, I don't believe the man's story. How in the hell do you fake a blood sample, anyway? And fertility clinics have multiple security steps they take to make things like this extremely difficult. I think he just changed his mind/got cold feet and is now trying to wriggle out of things.

[lumberjack_jeff]

66. Multiple security steps?

Such as a phone call? "Hey Joe, do you want to be a dad?" is a security step they didn't take.

Buying a car in absentia carries more "security steps".

[apocalypsehow]

111. Back when they had only four channels on TV I used to watch a preacher man shout and wave his arms

on the tube when there was nothing else on. His sermons invariably boiled down to the hazards of sex, and HOW IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE LEST JUDGMENTS COME. Odd how your post brought that distant, stale memory to mind...

( :eyes:)

[sibelian]

126. + like, millions...

[Pithlet]

138. That's a really interesting view

Seeing providing food and shelter for ones own child as punishment for sex.

[apocalypsehow]

150. It would be, if anyone had expressed any such view. As they have not, one assumes you started a

reply in one thread, and somehow ended up posting that reply to a random poster in yet another, completely unrelated thread. Might want to work on that.


Edit: typo.

[originalpckelly]

70. It's odd how women can do whatever they want responsibility wise, but men are always on the hook.

Even when someone uses sperm deposited in a condom to have herself artificially inseminated.

[Pithlet]

73. Gee. I want to live in that world where women can do whatever they want!

Where is that world!?

Oh wait. It doesn't exist.

[NeedleCast]

39. The One Where You Do What You Want

Then bend the religion to your world view, instead of bending your world view to your religion. Makes him the same as approx 99% of believers.

[Historic NY]

26. So who made the withdrawal if he didn't ....a succubus

[WildNovember]

33. I don't get it. How could his girlfriend "steal" his sperm if not without his consent

or aid, & if she "stole" it in the usual way, why did she need a fertility clinic?

On edit, I see by reading further in the thread that he used a condom...but the story is still fishy, as someone else has already explained.

[lumberjack_jeff]

74. This story is novel only in that IVF was involved.

Absent the medical condition which prevented her from becoming pregnant normally, it'd be just another "unexpected pregnancy resulting from condom failure" statistic.

[Liquorice]

35. What a phony story. Once you read the whole article, it's obvious the guy is lying.Those poor kids

have a lying nutcase for a father.

[Pithlet]

38. It's completely ridiculous.

Only two types would buy it. People with an agenda who are conveniently ignoring facts, or people who are incredibly gullible.

[Major Nikon]

40. His lawyer bought it

Or perhaps he just pretended to buy it in order to try to extort money from the clinic. Obviously one of the two sides of that story is not telling the truth, but that's what civil trials are for.

[Pithlet]

41. Who says his lawyer believes him?

I'm sure the money he collects from his client will soothe his conscience. Or maybe his laywer has an agenda. Either way, who cares? Sure. One side is telling the truth. I'm sure the side with the vastly more believable tale is the one that's much more likely to be telling the truth. That's the one I'd put my money on.

[Major Nikon]

43. That's why I said his lawyer could be trying to extort money out of the clinic

Regardless of what the political right would have everyone believe, lawyers aren't stupid and they aren't going to file a lawsuit they know will be a slam dunk for the other side. For one thing it's a waste of their time. For another it opens their side up to a counter suit for legal fees. However, it is possible the lawyer is trying to use the publicity to try to force the clinic to settle early out of court.

The clinic may have a clear reason to lie as well. It's very possible they have been using a very lax consent process in order to bring in more customers where the male doesn't want to ever visit the clinic. If the father is telling the truth, it would not only open them up to a big payout, but it could get them in hot water with the state medical board for ethics violations.

I'm not going to make a bet on this one either way. The tort process is designed to ferret out the liars.

[Pithlet]

50. It's not very possible.

The story is so ridiculous that I would bet a tidy sum. He's going to lose.

[treestar]

53. The lawyer thinks he can get a jury to agree with it

Ultimately the reason the lawyer would take the case.

There is no "extortion" in a civil settlement. No one is forced to offer money to settle a case.

[lumberjack_jeff]

57. We'll see. Bookmarking.

Let's check back in 6 months.

[Pithlet]

59. Perfectly fine by me n/t

[redqueen]

96. +1

[AngryAmish]

37. How did the clinic get his blood?

I can see the sperm (if you wanna, be my guest honey and throw this out...) but blood is harder to get.

[Major Nikon]

55. That's probably where the case is going to hinge

However even those things can be faked if the clinic is duplicitous. They don't save the blood, only the report from the lab, so they could easily just put his name on top of a generic report.

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. It'd be easy enough.

"Honey, our new medical insurance wants you to go to the clinic for a blood test. Your appointment is at 9:00 tomorrow morning."

[Pithlet]

61. Yet another step in the deception. My, my, my.

And yet another clinic had to be in on the deception. So, all these things had to happen. Or, he's lying. Which is more likely?

[lumberjack_jeff]

64. She obtained post-breakup IVF from a clinic which he's never step foot in.

those facts appear to be unquestioned.

At a bare minimum, the fertility clinic should have affirmative, face to face consent from both parents they intend to put on the birth certificate.

[Pithlet]

65. You seem to be accepting an awful lot of fact unquestioningly

Bizarro facts, at that. You have no evidence he never stepped foot in that clinic, for one thing. He merely asserts he didn't. After the fact, when he doesn't want to pay child support. Convenient, that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

67. The evidence that he never stepped foot in the clinic are the statements of the clinic director.

The clinic's director and the clinic's lawyer don't claim to have ever seen or spoken to this guy.

Their exposure to him is limited to samples and paperwork brought to the clinic by mom.

[Pithlet]

69. No it isn't.

They never said he never came into the clinic. Read the article again. They just said they couldn't absolutely swear that ever came in. There's a difference.

[lumberjack_jeff]

72. The difference is lawyer-ese.

Any claim they sidestep which would have supported their case can safely be considered false. They don't claim that he's ever been there, therefore obviously they are not disputing this part of his story. The sample and all consent forms were brought to the clinic by his ex-girlfriend.

[Pithlet]

75. Yep. Those sneaky laywers. Thanks for making my point for me.

It couldn't possibly be that it's a clinic that has people sign forms like every other clinic, and people leave samples, like every other clinic. I'm sure that if pressed, my obgyn would have to say that technically, they couldn't swear that I'd ever actually been there either, even though my signed forms and samples are there. I mean, there's no video camera there, and what with the staff turn over and no video cameras... Obviously, the only conclusion to be drawn is that I'm a fraud! Duh duh duhhhhhhh!

[lumberjack_jeff]

76. Except for your chart, the appointment book and the fact that your Dr knows you, I suppose so.

Is there a level of ridiculousness that is beneath you?

[Pithlet]

77. I didn't sign that chart and appointment book! And the Dr is lying!

Why don't you believe me!!!!! ETA funny that. A bill dodger, no dice A child support dodger. No problemo!

[lumberjack_jeff]

79. No one says the fertility doctor is lying.

He doesn't claim to have ever met the guy. The extent of his stated involvement with him is the papers and samples brought to him by the patient.

[Pithlet]

80. The law suit is against the fertility clinic.

The plaintiff is claiming fraud against the clinic. ETA it's especially ridiculous because his claims seem to rest on the fact that they rely on signed forms and samples. It's moronic. What else are they supposed to do, exactly? Are people supposed to put up collateral? It's what practically all clinics do. You go in. YOu sign forms of consent. They have his signature.

[lumberjack_jeff]

83. If they can't prove they've ever spoken to the guy, then they should lose.

A fertility doctor who doesn't confirm that the sperm donor wants to be a father is guilty of malpractice.

[Pithlet]

85. There is conflicting information in the story.

They said they performed bloodwork on him. How can they do that if they didn't have him in the clinic? I do agree with you that if they don't receive consent that is a problem for the clinic. But the two statements given by Sheena simply do not mesh. Both things cannot be true. And if they have his blood work, the second statment cannot be true. I strongly suspect there is a misquote. I suspect a misquote out of context after leading question from the reporter.

[lumberjack_jeff]

86. No they didn't.

(the clinic's lawyer) Sheena said the father had blood work performed and submitted to the clinic around the same time as the in vitro procedure. He also said the clinic has signed consent forms and information sheets from the father.

[Pithlet]

87. It was his insurance used. With his credit cards.

That was his blood work. It would all show up on his insurance. Look, if it were all paid for in cash, and and the blood work weren't involved, it would be something else. But it has his name all over it. He's out of gas on this. It's way too much of a stretch that someone has sex with someone who keeps immediately disappearing with the condoms, somehow has bloodwork done in his name, uses his insurance and credit cards, MONTHS of all this mind you, and he has no clue? Come on. Even other people who normally agree with you on stuff aren't buying this one.

[LanternWaste]

89. Your Spy Vs. Spy scenario is becoming

Your Spy Vs. Spy scenario is becoming both more bemusing and more absurd as it continues... :P

[liberalhistorian]

101. I wouldn't bother any longer with

the lumberjack here. In his world, men are always right and always wronged by women, and women are succubi out to get them. Men can have as much sex as they want and should never have to accept any consequences, and women can go pound sand since they all get pregnant on purpose to "trap" men. That's his world, so there's no point in even arguing with him. You should see him on child support threads.

[Pithlet]

103. I know, I'm quite familiar.

It's fun to play around every once in awhile though. It amuses me. Particularly this thread. I mean, how can it not.

[sibelian]

127. Oh, OK

So, actually you don't give a shit about this subject?

[Pithlet]

128. No.

Why on Earth would you think that? :shrug:

[sibelian]

129. Goodness only knows.

[Pithlet]

130. Well. Alrighty then n/t

[JoePhilly]

49. This sounds like a scene from "Legally Blonde".

[closeupready]

132. LOL, I know. Lots of heat and light, little of substance upstairs.

:rofl:

[roamer65]

63. I feel sorry for the twins having these two as parents.

[LeftinOH]

91. He spilt his "issue", then let her run off with it. Watch where your "issue" goes, fellas. n/t

[Karenina]

97. And if you don't want children, GET A VASECTOMY!

Would that all boys at 12 were required as a "rite of passage" to do so! FERGIT CIRCUMCISION!! :rofl:

[jberryhill]

100. I do not shun women, Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ci4Iz2gBRss/Sr4q0kvQFiI/AAAAAAAAACg/MlSBi-Roiao/s320/Brigadier+General+Jack+Ripper.jpg

[Avalux]

125. It would have been a heck of a lot easier for her to put holes in the condom.

This story just doesn't add up.

[lumberjack_jeff]

141. She needed IVF to conceive.

But, yeah. She's undoubtedly already tried the holes in the condom approach.

[lumberjack_jeff]

142. From the NY post

Turns out Sugar the stripper aka "mom";
a) dated Joe for 6 months back in 2007
b) tried to convince the court to make her his common law wife against his wishes, to obtain title to his assets. The court rejected her.
c) was forced to accept joint custody with Joe - (so child support probably isn't the issue)
d) told the clinic that she was married
e) Burnett, whose stage name is Sugar, according to her ex, sourly told The Post, "I'm not going to discuss that with anybody," and then hung up.

http://www.news.com.au/world/exotic-dancer-trust-me-im-no-sperm-burgler/story-e6frfkyi-1226207682354#ixzz1f8spTrV8

On the other hand, Joe;
a) learned that they had his sperm on ice from a receipt mailed to him in February
b) has never been to the clinic. All samples and test results "were delivered" to the clinic.


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/ex_gal_is_rubber_robber_DCGfEDf4vcBl12VJaiIo2N

[tammywammy]

145. Interesting details n/t

[Pithlet]

146. Sorry.

Your link from the NY Post. They're all his claims. Everything ends in "he said" And I'm not exactly clear on how exactly the fact that she's a stripper makes his claims any more realistic. The fact that sperm couldn't be extracted from a condom and used in this manner doesn't magically become possible just because she's a stripper.

[lumberjack_jeff]

147. "I'm not going to talk about that" is her defense.

The fact that neither she nor the clinic dispute anything he's saying is relevant.

[Blue_Tires]

152. so where did the blood sample come from??