happythoughts 0 #76 February 25, 2005 QuoteThen again, that's a lot of trouble. Just do her - everyone else does. Not hardly. I do all the work and she gets the best sex of her life for free? Plus she told her friends and now all these bored, rich, attractive women are hounding me. Has the woman no sense of propriety? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #77 February 25, 2005 I know. I just don't think it's really fair. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #78 February 25, 2005 QuoteI know. I just don't think it's really fair. Nor do I. It's up to the legislature to fix things like this and make the decision about who should bear the suffering. Ultimately, the child does... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #79 February 26, 2005 QuoteQuoteHe took his dick out, and let her stimulate him to orgasm. That's basically all we really know about the case. She admitted to giving oral and taking it out and using it to get pregnant. She never really said that. If you look at the updated story, it says just the opposite: Quote Dr. Richard O. Phillips accuses Dr. Sharon Irons of a "calculated, profound personal betrayal" six years ago, but she says they had the baby through sexual intercourse. Maybe she's lying. But he could be too. And unless there's other evidence (for example, conversations containing admissions on her part), there's really no way to know one way or the other. Wayne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
only_at_120 0 #80 February 26, 2005 QuoteQuoteI know. I just don't think it's really fair. Nor do I. It's up to the legislature to fix things like this and make the decision about who should bear the suffering. Ultimately, the child does... But in this particular case, she is a doctor, as is he. I do not believe her story but regardless of what I believe, the whole case is a crock and it is totally a shame that more laws will have to be passed by the legislature for such crap. I did not read the whole article but if she is not praticing at this time, I would suggest she go back to work. She put enough thought into getting preg. by this guy, she should have put more thought into how she was going to support the child. She said he was so supportive and wanted her to get a divorce!!! Just doesn't add up. She needs to take responsibility in HER decision. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #81 February 26, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteI know. I just don't think it's really fair. Nor do I. It's up to the legislature to fix things like this and make the decision about who should bear the suffering. Ultimately, the child does... But in this particular case, she is a doctor, as is he. I do not believe her story but regardless of what I believe, the whole case is a crock and it is totally a shame that more laws will have to be passed by the legislature for such crap. I did not read the whole article but if she is not praticing at this time, I would suggest she go back to work. She put enough thought into getting preg. by this guy, she should have put more thought into how she was going to support the child. She said he was so supportive and wanted her to get a divorce!!! Just doesn't add up. She needs to take responsibility in HER decision. She could be a Doctor of Music, or Divinity.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craichead 0 #82 February 26, 2005 QuoteShe could be a Doctor of Music, or Divinity. So if she were either of these, then she wouldn't really have work to go back to! But, she's actually a medical doctor... QuoteIrons, who practices internal medicine in suburban Olympia Fields... Although, after all of this, who would want to be one of her patients? _Pm__ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #83 February 26, 2005 QuoteQuoteShe could be a Doctor of Music, or Divinity. So if she were either of these, then she wouldn't really have work to go back to! But, she's actually a medical doctor... QuoteIrons, who practices internal medicine in suburban Olympia Fields... Although, after all of this, who would want to be one of her patients? _Pm Thanks for the warning, I live in the next town over from Olympia Fields, it's less than a mile away from my house.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #84 February 26, 2005 What us really an outrage is he had to pay child support. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #85 February 26, 2005 QuoteAlthough, after all of this, who would want to be one of her patients? That depends. If you get a bj at every checkup and my medical insurance is paying for the visit... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #86 February 26, 2005 QuoteWhat us really an outrage is he had to pay child support. At least for once he's the father. There are a lot of guys that DNA proves are not the father and the court makes them pay child support. Of course, the court system only works one way. If he had a problem enforcing visitation... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craichead 0 #87 February 26, 2005 QuoteThat depends. If you get a bj at every checkup and my medical insurance is paying for the visit... But remember, you have to make sure that she swallows! _Pm__ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #88 February 27, 2005 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No action of his would have lead to a child being born. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Except ejaculating. So if I go rub one out into a sock my cleaning lady could get pregnant and you would support it being my fault since I poped a load? QuoteYour entire argument is based on the assumption that it happened the way he said it happened, and that it was an intentional act by her And your argument is that it didn't go the way he said."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #89 February 27, 2005 Legal is what a lawyer can make a judge agree with. Right is a totally different matter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #90 February 28, 2005 Want to see something really interesting? Google "paternity fraud". There was a 1999 study by the American Association of Blood Banks that found that in 30 percent of 280,000 blood tests performed to determine paternity, the man tested was not the biological father. For some reason, I recall that it was non-marital partners being tested, but that wasn't stated anywhere that I could find. 30%. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #91 March 7, 2005 Hey, folks. Look at this case from last week. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B175996.DOC - It's in Microsoft Word format. In California, a sperm donor, if he donates the sperm to a licensed physician for use of another woman other than his wife, is treated as if he were not the natural father. This prevents the sperm donor from being hit with child support. Here, the tables got turned on the sperm donor. These facts are interesting. Guy donates sperm. The pregnancy fails. They take up a sexual relationship. No pregnancy results. She goes back to the donated sperm and gets pregnant. The father then wanted visitation. He alleged that the child was conceived through the sexual relations. The trial court found as a fact that conception occurred through the donated sperm, and not sexual relations. The trial court then granted paternal visitation, finding that policy required that it not allow the mother to challenge his rights. The appeals court reversed, finding that the statute that held that there were no parental rights was to apply even in this situation. So, here the father is off the hook for child support. But, he cannot visit his son. I wonder whether this law, if in Illinois, would allow the father to escape. In those facts, the woman was apparently a doctor. Was she a licensed physician? If so, while the sperm donor may not have intended to use for artificial insemination, but it was, in fact, used for artificial insemination. Ha ha! This is where lawyers have fun. Hey, she WAS a doctor, and it WAS used for artificial insemination. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #92 March 7, 2005 Quote...while the sperm donor may not have intended to use for artificial insemination, but it was, in fact, used for artificial insemination. ...Hey, she WAS a doctor, and it WAS used for artificial insemination. Wouldn't the precedents surrounding doctors apply then? What was that case with the doctor at UCLA who took tissue from a patient to do research?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #93 March 7, 2005 QuoteWouldn't the precedents surrounding doctors apply then Your talking about Moore v. Regents of the University of California (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120. Interesting view that I hadn't thought about. Dern laypeople expanding my horizons. Moore wa about a guy who had leukemia, and the doctors recommended (reasonably) that Moore have his spleen removed to save his life. In the interim, the doctors all recognized that he had unique cells that they could make money off of. Moore consented to having his spleen removed. However, the doctors didn't tell him about their financial interest. The doctors then used his spleen to develop a cell line that made them some righteous bucks. Moore sued, claiming conversion (theft) of the cells, and that the doctors failed to disclose their financial interest ( think he claimed other stuff, too, but I don't know.) The Cal Supreme Court said that he couldn't claim conversion because once the cells left his body (at his consent) they weren't his anymore. This meant that he could not get a share of the money made off of it. But, the court held that the doctor had a duty to disclose his financial interest, so Moore could sue for breaching that duty. In this instance, I dont' think conversion would apply, since he voluntarily (actually, probably pretty happily) gave up his cells. Also, I don't think she would have a duty to disclose her financial interests, since there likely was not a fiduciary relationship. Interesting thought, though, Tom. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
