I am not sure it is plausible... http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/pregnancy/AN00281

Absent specialized storage which most american's don't have access to, sperm would only be viable for a matter of hours at best. While it is possible, the woman took what was in the condom and an applicator... and... well, you get the picture... I would see no reason that a fertility clinic would be involved other than to prescribe fertility pills. This man is obviously looking for "deep pockets."

If this woman and this clinic did this without his consent then I hope he wins his lawsuit.

This would be a serious fraud perpetrated upon the court.

.

Agreed, very disturbing. That the clinic did not get his approval, it would seem that they are going to be on the hook for child support plus damages. She also seems like quite the snake and manipulator.

hilarious....really funny, weird and sad at the same time. Moral of the story : do not have sex casually. It may end up biting you in the balls. The woman is a crazy chick and my heart goes to these kids who have parents met for fighting and not procreating. Help these kids.....take them away from the crazy woman....and find them a good home !

JM2C -- regardless of specialized storage or not, if they have him listed as a patient, and he never consented to medical treatment of any kind, they are in the wrong and are culpable for any punitive damages the court sees fit to award him. It also cuts off his obligation to pay child support.

This woman is the utmost in devious. Sabotage and subterfuge is no basis for a family unit. Those poor kids are going to be warped.

Read the lawsuit. That clinic is going to bite it big time!

WMG - If they have him listed as a patient and yet he had no medical procedure, then, at worst, he doesn't have to pay the bill. My point about the specialized storage is that there is no way this woman could have saved sperm in a condom, trotted it down to the doctor's the next day, and gotten impregnanted with that sperm. The sperm would have been dead. It is possible, however, that the woman used an applicator (gotten from said clinic) with the sperm from the condom and impregnanted herself in the bathroom within hours of er.. collection. This, of course, would make the woman culpable, not the doctor. If this truly happened, and he can prove it, he has a good case against paying child support.

If this did happen, he certainly appears to have been a stupid man and I am not sure why she wanted his DNA except for money. And if the allegations are true about the girlfriend, I agree... one warped woman.

Actually, the man may even have a tough time getting out of child support. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7024930/

Old story, but still current law. The Court decided that for the woman to be culpable of using sperm without permission, it would have to be proven that she committed theft. It was ruled that the sperm was a "gift" as the man could have certainly taken back the sperm by using a condom and taking possession of the contents. As he did not, he didn't intend for the woman to return the sperm. He now pays child support. (Interesting case, if you have time to read it. She er.. collected the specimen in her mouth... saved it there long enough to seek privacy.. and then relocated the contents to a more appropriate place to facilitate pregnancy.)

Is this guy for real? I guess this is what he will tell the courts!!

I didn't do it your honor I was just there!

The problem is that HE DID father children

and HE DID dip his wick into the bowl.

The process of conception was/is still HIS RESPONSIBILITY.

HE HAS CREATED CHILDREN WHO NEED A FATHER and his money.

Moral of the story: If you don't want kids, don't dip your wick into the soup bowl.

JM2C-- I should have clicked the link to the full article. Here's what the clinic admits to!!!

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.

So the Jibby Juice left in condoms is actually little people? Sort of like this Sea Monkeys we sent away for as little children.

Dirtydog, Welcome to Sex Ed 101

Just My 2 Coppers - AS a woman I find this kind of attitude or actions from another woman ab horrid. I think anyone that acts in this kind of subterfuge should never be awarded any kind of benefit. The clinics that work in this field should require the Male to be present signing consent. Regardless of DNA, he should not be responsible for the pregnancy unless he chooses to and she should be in jail until the children are born and taken away from her. She should be required to pay the state for the children's well being in a new home.

Understood, Brenda. If his story is true, I feel the same way. However, we only know they story he has related in the lawsuit; one cannot automatically believe that it represents the absolute truth. I prefer to reserve judgment until the entire story is told. :-) (Not sure why your post is directed at me but I have certainly not defended her alleged actions.) I suspect, however, there is far more to this story than meets the eye.

As for whether or not he should be responsible for the child support (which I assume you mean as these children have already been born), the only argument I offered was a precedent case that was very similar in which the judge decided in favor of the child. Even if his story is absolutely true, why make the children suffer for the mother's action? As for taking someone's children away for doing something they shouldn't... that's a little much... and is certainly not proven to be in the best interest of the children giving the information we have so far. The legal systems is about justice, and that doesn't always mean punishment.

I am sorry, but If she did what he says she did then I do not feel she should benefit at all from what she did. In fact I feel she should go to jail. To me, she is just as bad as a rapist. I feel the child should go to a family that will actually care about it. Also I feel the Clinic should be responsible as well as the mother for the child support, not the raped father.

You are free to feel however you like. However, the law is the law. And you have no basis on which to say she doesn't care about her children. Child support is not a "benefit" for the mother, it is a "benefit" for the children. I am sure you are quite passionate about your beliefs... but again, we do not know the whole story yet.

I find it odd that a man who claims "his religious beliefs would never allow him to visit a fertility clinic or participate in any form of artificial insemination" would be even mentioning this. Would that same religious tradition also forbid the use of condoms and pre-marital sex?

To bad for him and his twin children that he was not more concerned about his religious beliefs before he entered into a sexual relationship.

Yeah, the whole thing screams child support avoidance to me based on the surface.. But who knows? Stranger things have happened. I guess we will have to wait and see...

You and I both know its the mother that gets the Child Support and not the child. If it was for the child we would have fewer kids starving and going without while the mother gets for herself. My brother is going through this very same thing as far as child support. I hate to admit it, but men have the short end of the stick on this issue. Faith, women pull the same thing as far as pregnancies. They have no problem counting ceiling tiles before marriage until they get pregnant and then abortion is against their religion. Men do not have the monopoly on when religion kicks in. Sometimes I feel like I am the only Woman who understands both sides of the fence.

Well, Brenda, you are NOT the only woman who knows both sides. But you ARE the only woman on here that is insisting you know the entire story with some sort of omnipotent viewpoint. The view from inside your own head can be a little myopic; perhaps you should try to see things from another's point of view rather than assuming that every story mirrors your own experiences. I happen to be a legal professional that works exclusively with male family law clients. And I have to tell you, any man who wouldn't call child protective services if his child was starving with mom doesn't deserve custody. Perhaps your brother should have thought this through before he fathered a child.

And I absolutely do NOT know child support is for the mother. In fact, I can speak with some authority when I tell you that starving children are not piling up in the streets while the moms live like queens. I defy you to collect child support and live anywhere on the top side of poverty without adding an income of your own. I currently collect child support for my child and I can tell you, it doesn't even cover her grocery bill. I get sick and tired of people acting like children are little ATM machines... on both sides of the fence. Parents that truly care about their children do not begrudge one dime spent on the child's behalf... and certainly don't mind who the check gets made out to. The problem is that so many cannot seem to separate their bitter feelings about the ex from the one thing that actually matters... the child.

In conclusion, you cannot tell me what "you and I both know" because you have no idea what I know. But a cursory glance seems to prove that I have a broader range of knowlege about the topic than you do. /rant off

Something to this story doesn't add up. She got pregnant three MONTHS after they broke up? How was the sperm preserved for that length of time?

He believed her story that she could not have babies because of "fibroids" but yet he used a condom anyway? He was obviously practicing safe sex since she was a stripper. But he is relying on blood tests to determine paternity? How about requesting a DNA test?

How about this spin? He is claiming it was against his religion to believe in unnatural means of conception but yet he believes in the "immaculate conception". Maybe he is the "second coming of the messiah". NAH, probably looking for the big payout.

Seems like a few years ago the big deal was giving your SSN to a girlfriend or wife and then breaking up, causing the possibility of identity theft or abuse. I wonder how you would control your released sperm, throw the condom away in a locked garbage can? LOL.

Or were you expecting men to not ejaculate at all?

So, since it was "stolen" without his knowledge, is he still legally required to give child support for kids he never wanted in the first place - lied to and being told his girlfriend couldn't have kids?

That's a question for the ages. Personally I don't think he should liable for paying because of the situation, but God knows the courts will most likely still make him pay. Sad.

Disabled Vet........ I agree as a woman I agree. If she did indeed go to a clinic and did this behind his back he should be off the hook I would not make him pay ...her on the other hand.....she would have to pay him damages. But let us see how this happened really happened

Inadaze: Just rinse it in soap and water, and there won't be anything left that is viable. Better yet, celibacy unless you are serious.

The donor should be held responsible in the first case.

I think the clinic should pay the donor a sum equal to any and all child support he expends if they didn't have procedures in place that would prevent such a circumstance after successful suit by the clueless donor.

The kids should not suffer the loss of resources nor should the man be uncompensated for his loss if the children aren't his by virtue of at least some consent on his part.

If the clinic feels defrauded they can then sue the mother for perpetrating a fraud but they really should develop procedures where this sort of thing is impossible.

Has anyone else actually taken time to read the lawsuit in the link above. Very interesting filing to read.

seriously? the "she told me she couldn't get pregnant" defense is actually being used in court? i thought that was usually the excuse at the frat house...

Syliva solves that problem

syliva=saliva

No, Dan, it doesn't.

Agreed. Must be another religious hypocrite; they only use religion when it is convenient for them.

Or what he is worshiping?

Michael- My thoughts exactly!

I was thinking the same thing. What "religion" is this guy talking about?

He could have kept his dick in his pants.

yep.

With those doctors, the man has to have a blood test, which he did, give an initial sperm sample in the office, which he did, and sign stacks of paperwork while in the office, which he did. The truth will come out and he will look bad. He is looking for a quick buck when he needs to take care of the babies.

faith hope love. According to the lawsuit filing, he never did any of those things. Of note, he lives in NY and the invitro fertilization took place in TX.

yes and everyone knows that just because he makes a claim it is true? What makes his words the truth? Why is it that everyone immediatley assumes this man was wronged? If I thought he was wronged, he would have all my sympathy BUT i am very familiar with INVITRO and the steps leading up to it and I do not believed he was wronged by the clinic. Just my opinion which doesn't account for much. The law will decide.

Faith-- I think this excerpt from the full KPRC article sheds some light on the disingenuous nature of this woman's in vitro procedure:

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.

amen!

Except that the (uncontested) medical records show that the woman underwent invito fertilization. If he never signed an agreement for them to use his sample, he is not liable for their birth (and therefore the child support). It also means that these poor twins' mother is a vile witch with a capitol B.

I would love to understand all the harsh feelings towards the woman from the jump. What happens if he really is lying? is she still all those hateful names?

Even if he was lying, and he did visit the clinic and donated his sperm-- which seems unlikely given the allegations-- she is still a conniving witch for utilizing said sperm 3 months after they had broken up to artificially inseminate herself against his wishes.

So you are the woman? If he didn't want children, why did you want them with him? He can't be that bad. Sure, he shouldn't have given sperm, and I do not believe that the fertility clinic would have used sperm from a condom. But why would the woman want to have children alone? It is hard to raise children with 2 people, much less one. I am always amused when people say, "I can do it by myself," as if they are immortal. It's 18 years of care, and you better have a big, loving support group for those kids.

Faith-- read the actual lawsuit. The woman falsified records indicating that she was his wife. Under that false pretense, she signed all the documents on his behalf. If nothing else, she has criminal charges coming to her for that alone. But here's the pertinent section from the lawsuit and the failures of the clinic, and the duplicity of the "wife":

13. Defendants owed certain duties to Joe Pressil. Defendants breached its duties and was negligent in one or more of the following ways:

a. Failing to obtain consent from Pressil before using his sample;

b. Failing to notify Pressil his sample was obtained, preserved, stored and used for in vitro fertilization;

c. Failing to design, implement or enforce policies and procedures to ensure donors have knowledge of their samples being obtained, preserved, stored and/or used for in vitro fertilization;

d. Failing to ensure in vitro patients purporting to be the spouse of a donor is, in fact, the spouse of the donor;

e. Failing to ensure in vitro patients have legal possession of a donor's sample; and

f. Failing to properly and timely alert donors their sample was obtained, preserved, stored and/or used by Defendants.

If these charges are true, then these clinics have a massive liability (there are two clinics named in the lawsuit).

In the state of Texas they were considered common law married so its not false pretenses. He admitted to putting her as such on all insurance docs and so on. LOL i find this to all be entertaining for the simple fact that i can sue anyone for anything yet in this instance he is right. I find it very tough to believe she signed for him because, again, my best friend just underwent the same procedure from the same amazing group of docs and they wouldn't even do the procedure until her husband came home from Afghanistan... hmmmm but apparently in this case his word is law.... smh

Elizabeth-1372999

What do you mean am I the woman? Why would anyone want to raise kids alone? Really? Nobody WANTS to raise kids alone but if it comes down to it, you do what you have to do for your kids. I sure the heck hope what i have to say next "amuses" you. I am raising my 3 sons alone and guess what sweetheart, I CAN, HAVE, and will CONTINUE to do so. I am not immortal by any means but I am darn sure providing for and raising my kids very well. I don't NEED a male to complete me and I can't force a POS to take care of their responsibility. My oldest was a product of rape so, since a single parent is so amusing to you, should i have gotten involved with that person so i didn't have to screw my kid up by doing it all alone? smh

There are an awful lot of immature, ignorant, spiteful men and women in this world who believe that babies, e.g. children, are pawns in a manipulative game of life.

When you get to be 60 and a grandparent you might begin to comprehend how horribly awful it is for children of divided natural parents, the fractured families, the mental anxiety of the children throughout life, the wasted hope and dreams of all concerned.

Just because a few can cope with being screwed up in their head doesn't mean that this whole mess is a viable alternative to proper family structure.

When I was counseling at the university, 95% of all the problems kids had boiled down to coming from a fractured family and feeling that it was somehow their fault. The feeling NEVER goes away. Period. And if you think that it does you are full of @!$%# as a thanksgiving turkey.

As the old saying goes, "The American society is as screwed up as hogan's goat."..... or something like that.

In this case, he shouldn't have had sex with her if he didn't want a commitment. And no fertility clinic would take sperm from an unknown condom.

Well, that's what a condom is for, and according to him he used it.

Elizabeth-- if the charges are true, do you really think she walked in there with a wet, used condom and said: "here's his sperm." ?

She probably had obtained a sample cup in advance and brought it in that way. Don't be willfully witless.

willfully witless...love it...gonna use it :)

He has to prove there was fraud first. But if a woman can terminate a pregnancy w/o any say from the man, then the man should be able to deny monetary rights to the child. Than maybe people would think twice before they do-the-do

By "people" you really only mean women... By your logic the man has nothing to lose. If he doesn't want to support the child, he doesn't have to. Kind of a step backwards... and man's "choice" begins at his zipper.

Agreed, his choice begins at his zipper, but so does hers.

I am just saying if SHE can opt out HE should be able to as well. It is a two way street.

She can opt out by having a medical procedure... doing so would end the father's obligation for financial support. He can opt out by having a medical procedure... doing so would end his obligation for financial support. Sounds fair to me.. Really, you have no case for this bull@!$%#. FOr many years, men "opted out" by simply having their fun and moving on. Now they are legally required to pay for that fun.. the same as the mother's have always done.

Jake I have a question, a woman only has so long to opt out, are you saying a man has only so long or can he get tired of said child and opt out when it's 2,4,7,12,16?

You can not compare apples to oranges..

And in my honest opinion Jake I have seen men opt out all the time.. My ex for one ditched his 8 kids (I only have one of the eight) and hasn't paid a dime of child support and now collects SSI and doesn't have to pay or support the children in any fashion..

You can blame it all on the guy, but like all women she was born with her legs separated and ready for action.

Don't give me that bull. All women want it, whether they do it or not. Life revolves around sexual feelings.

Murdering babies is no solution. I have yet to talk to even one woman who doesn't regret having killed her unborn baby. period. no not one. They NEVER get over it. period.

And guys NEVER get over not seeing their child. period.

What a disgusting tiny, little man. Your comments are worth no response other than this.

I am not really advocating giving men the easy way out of parental obligation, but rather that in this age of equality that abortion in an inequality. Whether it is an inequality to the child or the father, it is still an inequality because the woman can make a unilateral decision that effects at least two other people. Parental obligation is serious business and the only way it can happen is some sort of sexual interaction. I believe that people (man or woman) should be very sure they are willing to step up and be a parent before they start tugging at their zipper. After all, we are in agreement that the zipper is where the choice begins.

Sorry, I left out what I am advocating.

I am against abortion but it is the law of the land here in America. So if it cannot be abolished than at least make it equatable. If the baby is healthy but the woman wants an abortion only because she does not want to be a parent, then the man should have the option of raising the baby. She should then have to pay child support to the man. This is an equatable "good for the goose, good for the gander" kind of thing.

I know, the woman would then be forced to carry the baby to term, and I agree that is also unfair. However until human physiology is altered I have no solution for that part.

Understood, Jake. However, the means test for this battle is who's life is MOST affected by the decision. (Ignoring the pro-life stance regarding whether a zygote is a person as it has been, thus far, denied personhood by the Supreme Court.) A woman has the right to unilateral decisions about her own body as it is only her physiological life that is involved. Allowing a man to dictate that a woman continue or terminate a pregnancy is denying her personhood.

The argument offering men the option to walk away from a child they helped create simply because they didn't want a child is flawed in that it assumes a responsibility to the mother.. instead of to the child. In mandating that men provide financial support to children they did not want, the court is recognizing the rights of the child. It all goes back to your rights end where another's rights begin. As children are unable to financially support themselves, the court mandates that the two people responsible for the child's existance do so.... equally. The mother gets child support to use on the child's behalf. If the father is dead set against paying the mother, he can seek primary custody and have her pay him.. or he can seek joint and no one pays anyone. (The latter is becoming more and more the policy of the states whenever possible.)

If men would stop for one second and really think about this, they would realize the basic equity. The man who doesn't want to be "tricked" into fatherhood can certainly take steps to prevent it. The man who accidently finds himself there has gambled and lost... as has the woman. But the child is the innocent and the focus of any legislation regarding child support.

Jake being against abortion is off topic for this.. So when you say things in that context we think you are saying that men have the right to dump the child they help created..

This article from the sounds of it he didn't help create the child.. The mother used sperm from a condom to impregnate herself.. I am 100% against that and my opinion is he doesn't have to support the child because he wasn't a formal party to the creation of the child.. However if a dumb-ass is going to believe a woman is on birth-control and she gets knocked up because he didn't use a condom well that is on him.. I met a guy that said he couldn't have children, didn't change my mind about using a condom.. I didn't care if i wasn't in danger of getting pregnant what i cared about was what i might get that i couldn't wash off with Ajax and penicillin... However you still run a risk of failed condom and pregnancy, but in the article this isn't the stated case..

Answering to your blog, why is your business what anyone does with their body? Dont tell me an innocent voice cant be heard..

Agreed for the most part and well argued.

However, my point resides in your first paragraph. If it should not be so easy for a man to shed parental responsibility then it should not be easy for the woman either. Or to couch it in terms that would make a good sound bite; "If she can remove a baby as easy as a wart, he should be able to as well." I just want to make the argument that if a man should not and can not throw away a child; a woman should not be allowed to either.

I also believe this is a subject that is best handles by the people involved and not the courts nor the government, but that is not the world we live in.

I has been a very thoughtful discussion and wish you well. If you celebrate i,t I also wish you a Happy Thanksgiving.

Calico,

You are, of course, correct and I apologize for expanding the topic to a more general discussion of parents rights.

So, to address the article above, if he is lying shame on him and if she is lying shame on her.

In either case I hope the child is cherished and well taken care of.

I understand your point, Jake. And I thank you for the well-reasoned and respectful debate. However, (I always laugh when people do this because it signals disagreement. lol)... anyway, however;

To your first point, it is decidedly NOT a simple matter for a woman to rid herself of an unwanted pregnancy. Financially, it can be quite a devastating proposition for lower income women. Emotionally, the decision can be overwhelming. And physically, we are still talking about an invasive medical procedure that carries all of the risks of other invasive medical procedures. All in all, a great deal more "inconvenient" than wart removal.

Additionally, I believe that the differing views you and I share have more to do with our political leanings than any male/female perspectives. I do not see a properly performed abortion as "getting rid of a child" as there is not a legal child in the offering. Any gynecologist will tell you that the average woman has a great many spontaneous abortions over her lifetime without ever realizing she is pregnant. Usually, she just experiences a heavier than normal flow. For this reason, deeming a zygote as a human being would lead us halfway down the "slippery slope" that would leave women vulnerable to charges if she, say, went horseback riding, ect. Equally, men may find themselves on the receiving end of similar litigation for er.. vigorous activity that precipitates a miscarriage. As litigious as society has become, this is not a path we need to take a detour on. "The government that governs least, governs best" and all that. On some points, I agree with the right. lol

Your view is that of a fertilized ovum as a human being. Thus far, the Courts have interpreted it as I have. This is not to discount any moral beliefs you hold at all. In fact, I am far from "pro-abortion" and would like to see our society take steps to mitigate the circumstances that lead to the decision in the first place. However, I am decidedly pro-choice as I believe, as you do, that this matter is best handled privately. However, when the parties involved cannot come to a consensus, the Courts are PAID to step in and decide to the best of their judgment. Roe v Wade did not mandate abortion. It simply allowed the private party to make the decision regarding their own medical treatment. As with other laws reflecting moral bias, the SCOTUS is there to prevent States from making laws that usurp the Constitution.

Hope your Thanksgiving has been a bright kick-off to the Holiday Season. :-)

Happy Thanksgiving Jake and Copper.. :D it's nice to share opinions with people and have them listen and give a good debate..

Sometimes a woman has to make that decision for the best reasons.. Sometimes both parties want the same thing and sometimes there isn't an agreement, i feel sorry for the child that didn't ask to be brought in to the world, just like these twins.. It's going to get uglier before it gets better and in this case they may never have a father because of her choice.

And agree shame on whoever the liar is in this one.

Happy thanksgiving, Calico. :-)

Again, did you read the actual lawsuit linked in the story before commenting? Based on the lawsuit, he did NOT go to either the clinic or the storage facility to "store" his sperm, nor did he ever grant any rights for them to do said storage.

You realize that the in vitro fertilization records are completely uncontested, right? This woman was artificially inseminated 3 months after they had broken up-- and she did so under the false pretense of being his wife. The contested facts are whether or not the sample was obtained legally and with the man's explicit (signed) consent. If not, then not only is this woman a sick B*tch, but the clinics in question are guilty of profound incompetence.

I am not sure where you heard that from, but it is wrong. You should stop saying that before someone DOES get pregnant.

What an idiotic statement... you HAVE a choice... it starts with your zipper. You have complete control over your own body and can get a vasectomy anytime you want. Allow me the control of my body.

What an idiotic statement... you HAVE a choice... it starts with your zipper.

It would seem that women have the same option of keeping their pants on as men. Or are you telling me that women are unable to control their animal instincts and are slaves to their sex drive?

What is idiotic is the expectation that one group of people are given the right to decide which children they want to keep and raise ,and which trhey do not want and will discard , while another group is denied any right in deciding which children they would want and which they wish to discard.

Given the fact that both parties have an equal amount of control over the production process both parties should have an equal right to disclaim the children that they do not want, regardless of whose body the child is carried in , because a woman who does not want a child for whatever reason can simply abort it and relieve herself of the responsibility , where as a man many not force a woman to abort a child that he does not want responsibility for.

Equal is equal I would say. I think the courts have pretty much dismissed the idea of men and women having different unequal sets of rights because they have different bodies.

It is downright sexist of you to 1) believe that I (or men in general want anything to do with your body.I"m sure you can't help believing that you are an object of desire and that men cannot control their sexual urges and force women to scum to their desire to control their bodies, but that is simply not the case.) And 2) that men should be relegated to a lesser position in society because of their gender.

You cannot have it both ways. At least not forever, and this is a case that may set the stage for a few more rights for men which we are entitled to. I can see how it will have women worried though, they may have to actually stop having sex with everyone they meet and children with a half dozen different dads.

How can I raise all these kids with child support from only one dad? Would be one of their main concerns it seems.

You assume too much. As I said above, a medical procedure for either party will relieve the responsibility of the financial burden of a child. Who exactly are these women "having sex with everyone they meet" having sex with if not men who are doing the same? Women's physiology allows for more than one procedural option of not having a child... while men are limited to just one option. You can take that up with God. As for your "lesser position"... seriously?! Oh the horror of being a male in a male dominated society!

Make no mistake, this case is nothing new and will change nothing. Bottom line for you, if you give the "gift" of DNA, you assume the risks associated with said gift.

I assume only facts that are in evidence.

Fact 1) a woman who does not want a child for any reason may discard the child and absolve herself of any responsibility for any and all unwanted children without exception. She will avoid any and financial and or moral responsibility at will and decide when and if she will reproduce and with whom. Even if she were to abort three or four children a year she would be entitled to do so without exception and be able to claim the right to reproduce at will.

Fact 2) men are not for any reason to discard children that they do not want for any reason, they are not entitled to decide which if any person they will not reproduce with and are afforded no release from responsibility for children that they do not want, financial moral or otherwise. A man cannot demand that a woman terminate an unwanted of his lineage, nor to bear any children that he would want to keep.

Given the facts the only fair and equitable way to achieve equality would be to allow each gender equal rights to discard children they do not want..

The person's body that the child is in is irrelevant because men have no more control over the bodies they were born with than women do. And sexism is sexism regardless of whom it is directed at, denying a human being completely equal rights without exception for no other reason than their gender is (in this case because we are male) is an unequal application of the law and a miscarriage of justice.

"they are not entitled to decide which if any person they will not reproduce with"

Really? Seriously? I had no idea that women raping men had become a societal norm. You have the right, you choose not to take it. If you do not want to have children, have a "medical procedure." If you may want to have children but not with her, don't have sex with her. It is quite simple. The laws of this land to not have to provide you more than two options for it to be considered a "choice."

Your argument pits women against men in that you think it is unfair to pay child support to a woman for a child you didn't want. This, alone, shows that you have given absolutely no thought to the CHILD and that is the Court's primary concern. I will reiterate; if you feel you cannot stop yourself from giving your "gift" and a child results.... And the woman you have chosen is not somone you want to have a child with.... there are still the rights of the child to consider. (You know, your rights end where another's begins, right?)

You have every right over your body.. and that includes ridding yourself of potential unwanted children.. either through the surgical intervention, a condom or simply not having sex. Women have that same control. Your rights end where the child's rights begin at birth in that you are not obligated to do ANYTHING for it prior to birth. Women's rights end a good deal sooner than that. A woman cannot have a late term abortion. A woman who gives birth to a drug addicted child WILL face charges. A man who indulges prior to the child's birth does not face similar charges. Is that "fair" or "equal?" Yes... it is. Because at that point the rights of the child take precedent.

By the way, people who say "FACT" in an effort to prop up the point without actually offering anything but opinions look rather silly.

Really? Seriously? I had no idea that women raping men had become a societal norm. You have the right, you choose not to take it. If you do not want to have children, have a "medical procedure." If you may want to have children but not with her, don't have sex with her. It is quite simple. The laws of this land to not have to provide you more than two options for it to be considered a "choice."

Actually this case concerns a woman raping a man. Although she seduced him it was rape none the less if we are going to apply the same equal standard to men and women.

Your argument pits women against men in that you think it is unfair to pay chid support to a woman for a child you didn't want.

My argument does not pit anyone against anyone it simply levels the playing field and hold everyone accountable to the same standard regardless of their gender, Your argument pits men against women in an attempt to disguise sexism as a right that women are entitled. Your only reasoning seems to be that men and women are not entitled to the same rights because their bodies are different. By definition sexism.

This, alone, shows that you have given absolutely no thought to the CHILD and that is the Court's primary concern.

This in fact is not so. The primary concern of the court with regard to reproductive rights, roe v wade is the privacy of individuals and their right to decide when and with whom they will reproduce. Given the garrantee of equal justice under the law it follows that all persons of either gender should be and are entitled to the exact same rights, without consideration of gender issues over which (as I pointed out )people have no control.

I will reiterate; if you feel you cannot stop yourself from giving your "gift" and a child results.... And the woman you have chosen is not somone you want to have a child with.... there are still the rights of the child to consider. (You know, your rights end where another's begins, right?)

you are reiterating a moot point, given that women have the same option of sterilization as men and are every bit as capable of refusing to have sex before they become impregnated

You have every right over your body.. and that includes ridding yourself of potential unwanted children.. Youer through the surgical intervention, a condom or simply not having sex. Women have that same control. Your rights end where the child's rights begin at birth in that you are not obligated to do ANYTHING for it prior to birth. Women's rights end a good deal sooner than that. A woman cannot have a late term abortion. A woman who gives birth to a drug addicted child WILL face charges. A man who indulges prior to the child's birth does not face similar charges. Is that "fair" or "equal?" Yes... it is. Because at that point the rights of the child take precedent.

First of all there is no child there is only a fetus as far as women's rights are concerned, a women could abort an addicted child every other month and face no charge, They are also allowed to abandon their children to a fire station of police station , they may sell it in a custom ordering scheme that is perfectly legal , give it away for adoption or turn it over to any number of agencies anonymously and resolve herself of all responsibility. She may even do all of those without any consent or knowledge of the father. Men are afforded none of those options. DO you really believe that a man could get away with leaving his new born child at a fire station or adoption agency without the mothers consent and get away withit, or that the law would consider it to be among his rights?

Any way you look at it your argument is only that women should be entitled to more rights than men because they have different bodies. That is sexism any way you look at it. Additionally as much as I really have very little use for children, the fact remains that a child that is abandoned by his father is still better off than one who was left in a surgeons vacuum, any time, and as much as I really have very little use for children,

By way, people who say "FACT" in an effort to prop up the point without actually offering anything but opinions look rather silly.

...and people with no point always attack the grammar and mechanics of an arguement that they cannot rebut There was very little opinion involved only facts. Albeit facts that you do not like but facts none the less. There is no reasonable or just reason why women and men should not be equally entitled to the exact same rights to refuse to accept those children that they do not want to accept.Like it or not these are the facts: A woman is free to keep whichever children she may want to and not keep whichever she does not want to (for any reason at all) Men are not granted the same rights because they have different bodies.

AS I originally said this fellow is leading the way for that to change and for men to get the equal justice under the law that they are entitled to.He may be the the beginning of the liberation of men from the sexist and unequal place that women have tried to keep us in us as second class citizens, and elevate us beyond the sex objects that women have always treated us like.

elevate us beyond the sex objects that women have always treated us like.

O.o It is pointless to continue this. Your outlandish claims such as the above have done little to persuade me to the merits of your complaint. My point about you claiming "facts" without ever having stated any sailed right over your head, Facts are something proven. None of your claims are.

It is your opinion that women are free to keep or discard any pregnancy they chose... and yet you fail to take into consideration the time limits and the financial aspect. http://www.gallup.com/poll/148631/Common-State-Abortion-Restrictions-Spark-Mixed-Reviews.aspx

It is your opinion that men are not free to discard the same, and yet they do so on an alarmingly regular basis. http://www.fatherhood.org/media/consequences-of-father-absence-statistics

As to your new "facts," the Safe Haven laws allow any parent with legal custody to drop off children they cannot care for. In fact, a man made headlines across the globe by dropping off 9 kids in Nebraska under this law. His wife had died and he could no longer care for them. Had his wife been alive, she could not have done the same over his objections. Therefore, if a woman chooses to discard an infant, the biological father has the right to claim the child and be granted custody.

I am certain that nothing I have said has changed your mind in the least. I suspect nothing could. You will continue in your irrational tirade against women. However, the FACT remains, it is the woman's body that carries the child; it is the woman's health that is risked through both the continuation or the termination of a pregnancy. You have no stake, so you have no say in the matter. Once the child is born, the child also has rights. One of those rights is to be financially cared for by BOTH parents. So, those children you didn't want that you now have to pay for? Well, so does she.

It is point less to continue with you because you refuse to accept facts for facts. Just because you say something is an opinion does not make it so. The fact is women are granted more rights in reproductive , custodial and parental rights, and the courts are bias against men in every level from criminal civil down through family courts. It is a remnant of a system from another time,that time is gone and it won't be long before the courts will have to catch up with reality. If you are going to claim to provide absolute equality to all people without regard to race then all people have to have the same rights , and be provided the same number of options as every other person.without exception. You are incapable of conceiving it because you are obviously hoping not to loose the upper hand and impossible have to be on the same plane as men.

This fellow has bee wrongly entrapped (even more so than many) by a woman with an plan that included shaken him down for support of a children that she had manufactured out of spare parts stolen parts at that.The court erred in granting her any support at all. His suit is the only chance he has to have the woman prosecuted.

I'm sure it would not bother you to have someone steal an egg or two and transplant them in someone else to make a baby and they come arround and want you to sopport the children because they came from your stolen eggs, but I cannot blame this fellow for taking exception. Also men are no more required to want their children than women are

It is your opinion that women are free to keep or discard any pregnancy they chose... and yet you fail to take into consideration the time limits and the financial aspect. http://www.gallup.com/poll/148631/Common-State-Abortion-Restrictions-Spark-Mixed-Reviews.aspx

Not an opinion a fact, they may opt for abortion from the moment to conception ,while man may not opt out in any length of time after conception. Also the time requirements are irrelevant ,given that six months is more than enough time for any rational human being to make a decision as to what they do or do not want.

As to your new "facts," the Safe Haven laws allow any parent with legal custody to drop off children they cannot care for. In fact, a man made headlines across the globe by dropping off 9 kids in Nebraska under this law. His wife had died and he could no longer care for them. Had his wife been alive, she could not have done the same over his objections. Therefore, if a woman chooses to discard an infant, the biological father has the right to claim the child and be granted custody.

Safe haven laws do not allow men to leave their unwanted children somewhere and be absolved of responsibility.Additionally it would be a fools errand for a man to seek custody of a child that he does not want just so he would be within the law in dropping the same child at a safe haven. Even if he were to do so he would be charged with child abandonment and prosecuted. None of which apply to women. She may abandon a child at will without responsibility or fear of retribution. Al we can do is keep working to bet our rights even if some women have to struggle to take care of their children. It is a small price in the overall picture.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/safehaven.cfm

<sigh> Unless you supply evidence, it is not a FACT. All 50 states have safe haven laws.. Only four restrict the protection to mothers. All of the rest allows fathers the same. And you are right.. it is pointless to continue. You are wrong, you don't care that you are wrong.. and you even claim to be right in the face of irrefutable FACTS that prove you wrong.

Rant away, misogynistic friend. You will not have to worry about my rebuttal as I won't be back. :-)

Not all states have safe haven laws. All states do however have free passage between bordering states, no state is able to stop a person from going to another to do something that is not allowed in the other. We do it all the time by going to NH for cheap liquor. I know people who have gone to other states to marry because they were too young in their own state.

Again you make a moot point. In my home state of RI they do not allow fathers custody of children born to unwed mothers at birth, custody is with the mother who may leave the child for adoption or There are no laws in any state that I am aware of that even requires women to disclose the name of the father or to inform the father that there is even a child in the making. Many find out just the way this fellow did , by getting an order t pay child support.

I have no hatred of women or anyone else I simply know the difference between what is right and what is wrong. I also know the difference between equal treatment and unequal treatment. Additionally I would not have expected you to reply even these few times that you , but as far as it goes I've not seen any rebuttal thus far I would not expect that you will ever find one at this point.

The in vitro fertilization took place 3 months after the couple broke up-- it does not state that the sample was stored at that time. You are assuming things.

she's not the only one who is assuming things... just saying

Unfortunately, Saffie, the courts don't give men the option to "take back your child support". He will almost certainly be required to pay child support to this woman even if he wins his case. The "it's for the children" mantra has been the source of innumerable injustices. That children suffer for the crimes of their parents is an unfortunate fact of reality. By using a condom, this former couple had an agreement not to produce children. (jm2c, I don't give a s--t what some court says about "gifts" of sperm. Judges don't define right and wrong.)

In my ideal justice system, the mother would lose all rights to the children, and the involuntary sperm donor would be given the option of raising the children himself or else giving them up for adoption. If he wants to keep them and allow the mother to participate in their lives, then she should pay him child support.