From a decision issued in February by an appellate court in
Plaintiff and defendant began dating in January of 1999. Plaintiff informed defendant he did not wish to have children prior to marriage and intended to use a condom if and when they engaged in sexual intercourse. During the entire course of their relationship, the parties engaged in intimate sexual acts three times. Vaginal penetration never occurred. On or around
Defendant responds that plaintiff did not loan or lease his sperm, and there was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request. She asserts that when plaintiff “delivered” his sperm to defendant it was a gift – an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee. Plaintiff’s donative intent was clear, she argues. “Had he not intended to deliver his sperm to me, he would have used a condom and kept it and its contents.” Plaintiff cannot show he had the right to unconditional possession of his sperm. Plaintiff presumably intended, and he does not claim otherwise, that defendant discard his semen, not return it to him.
WRAP IT UP YALL.
August 1 2005, 19:25:54 UTC 6 years ago
August 2 2005, 01:40:49 UTC 6 years ago
August 2 2005, 01:43:13 UTC 6 years ago
August 2 2005, 14:33:06 UTC 6 years ago
August 2 2005, 04:02:01 UTC 6 years ago
but its the thought that counts
so when the "gift" was "delivered" did she "discard" it into a cup on the bedside table and then jump up and dance around about how she's got his babies now?bitches are fucked up
August 2 2005, 14:41:50 UTC 6 years ago
Re: but its the thought that counts
(see latest post)