Posted on 11/27/2011 10:14:09 PM PST by Slings and Arrows
A Long Island man was stunned to find out that his 4-year-old twins weren’t an accidental pregnancy at all — his desperate girlfriend secretly stashed away his sperm and used it for an in-vitro procedure, he charges in a lawsuit.
Elmont resident Joseph Pressil, 36, wasn’t planning on having children with Anetria Burnett, with whom he was in a relationship for six months in 2007, he said.
So she took matters into her own hands, he told The Post, in order to remain in his Texas house and make a legal bid for half of his possessions.
-snip-
The real bombshell dropped last February, when Pressil got a strange receipt in the mail for sperm cryopreservation.
Confused, he called the company that had sent him the paperwork, which referred him to the Advanced Fertility Center of Texas, where a manager asked him to sign a release form.
That’s when he said he uncovered the bizarre plot.
“She was taking [the semen in condoms] after the fact and running down to the clinic with it,” said Jason Gibson, who is representing Pressil in his suit. He now has joint custody.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Quite untrue. Under common law a man was always responsible for the support of his illegitimate children. Often wasn't effectively enforced, and prior to DNA testing was difficult to determine accurately, but it was the law.
A major plot line in the novel Tom Jones (1749), and many other stories of the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_(law)
Personally, I know it is exceptionally weird, but I believe neither men nor women should engage in intercourse unless they're willing to take the chance that it will result in pregnancy and deal responsibly with the consequences (also known as new, utterly innocent human beings).
Fairly obviously, this does NOT allow for "pumping and dumping a slut."
BTW, I hold the man who would do such a thing in exactly the same respect as the women who would allow him to. Which ain't much.
Yes fine. In the real world, you will be dating nobody.
This woman obviously wanted sex. A guy putting a condom on obviously means the guy doesn’t want kids, else he wouldn’t put it on in the first place.
What REASONABLE PERSON - which I suggest you are not - would EVER expect that a woman would do this knowing the guy didn’t want kids b/c of the condom being used? And then go behind his back and run to a sperm bank to save it?!?! To have a kid without telling him and then going after support?!?!
You’re as bad as a liberal justifying crazy womens’ behavior. Like the guy is the evil person here and the woman’s the entitled victim. Gimme a break.
The problem is you are confusing two issues here. One being the moral issue of sex outside of marriage. The other, the moral issue of what this woman did without this guys’ knowledge and had pre-planned to do to him, clearly going against his obvious intentions, without telling him. Talk about deceit and selfishness and just lack of disregard of him as a person and will of his to say yes or no. Forget that.
And if the guy decided all on his own, to put holes in the condom because he alone decided he wanted a kid, and she had no idea and got pregnant, you’d say she totally deserved it?
You’d say she left herself open to this happening to her, and you’d have very little sympathy for her, and not blame the guy that much like you’re not blaming the gal now?
You forget she was using him for sex as well. They were both wanting to have sex with each other. You appear to forget women like sex too. He admits he didn’t want kids, and he used a condom. What is clearer to a woman of his intentions, but she didn’t care as she had pre-planned to do this DESPITE knowing his stated and obvious (condom) steps to not get her pregnant.
Most people here, except for a few people who lack the intellect to differentiate between liberty and libertine accept that engaging in sex comes with an obligation to care for any children.
It is called being an adult.
In exchange for freeing fathers from having to pay to raise their bastard children, could we bring back adultery criminal penalties in full force? I don’t think the PUHLEEEEZEmen would be too happy about that either.
If he wants custody and has a more capable household than she does, I wouldn’t object to granting it — since the intent wasn’t to be a sperm donor even though he picked a method known sometimes to fail. Still the older laws which would have smacked both for adultery would have made sense too. And from a celestial point of view, he and she deserve what they get when they do things like this that screw their own souls.
I get a laugh out of people whose idea of "traditional marriage" is limited to the sex of the participants.
Yes, of course bastardy laws go hand-in-hand with a lot of others, including enforcing the adultery statutes.
judges don’t look celestial.
judges look for the lie.
she lied.
she lied to become pregnant.
she lied to accomplish mercenary goals.
the children were just a means to an end.
They are the ONLY innocent party here and really the party whose best interest should guide the court.
Neither parent is a prize and whiny sperm boy has been no better than the conniving stripper. They deserve each other in every way, but the kids deserve first consideration.
It may be that neither sperm nor egg donor is a fit parent, certainly they both engaged in behavior which quite properly put them in this court battle and I have zero problem with assessing child support on both of them and putting the offspring with responsible extended family.
Nah, you can stuff it, you self-righteous POS.
I can tell that you’re still a virgin based upon your attitude.
Again, WHAT A MAROON!
It’s high-time you grow up, get a job and move out of Mom & Dad’s basement, Jerk.
(Yeah, I know. It’s really cool having free WiFi and Mom doing your laundry, but only idiots and special needs adults still do that, Moron.)
Were people in those cultures expected to remain chaste until marriage ? My point was that it is easier to remain chaste for a few months than for decades.
Do you believe a woman can be raped by her husband if she made it clear she did not want sex at that time ?
I hold up a mirror right back to you to your accusations, most particularly the one about being “self righteous.” It is you who are equating the difficulty of the task (what, Ernie Kaputnik has no self control?) with the excuse from it.
And so it goes for all “OH, PUHLEEEEEEEEZEmen.”
Neither one could put a condom on his or her soul. They screw both of themselves fooling sexually together out of matrimony. And the celestial Judge knows and has already set things up so that it brings curses, not blessings. It would be like trying to ride horses backwards, falling on your can, then blaming the horses, the saddle, everything but your own stupidity. And this goes double for “OH, PUHLEEEEEEEEZEmen.”
You got it tzar. And I think your tag is right on too. If the liberal doctrine-pounders don’t write their “scripture” on a cocktail napkin then they get it off the walls of lavatories (for a good time call...) or the cups at Starbucks.
It’s ironic how the idea of “rape in marriage” can even be entertained by modern legal systems, except under special circumstances that involve something other than mere normal sex (no, you don’t get to sodomize your wife, no you don’t get to practice sadism upon her, you might be expected to refrain if she has an unusual medical condition that would make sex dangerous to her life, etc.). While it may be poor marital relations not to care if she has a headache, it ain’t rape.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.