5 ms·

I'm curious; by the logic given in the article, a woman who was inseminated by way of a glass tube has the possibility of legitimate legal recourse for defectiv

I'm curious; by the logic given in the article, a woman who was inseminated by way of a glass tube has the possibility of legitimate legal recourse for defective semen, whereas if it were provided via a meat tube, it would be seen as a cruel aberration of nature. It's almost as if in the former case, the semen is considered to be manufactured, since it was purchased. I would like to hear from someone with a legal background to comment on this.

dawson 18y ago
"provided by a meat tube" made me spit my tea on my keyboard and laugh out loud! sigh I'm so immature.
niels_olson 18y ago
I asked a law school friend a similar question recently. The first order of business would be to rule out a violation of contract. If the sperm bank said the sperm was fit in all respects, or something like that, there might room for a battleground there. There may or may not be a medical malpractice issue, which exists independent of the contract. Malpractice issues are generally an issue of 1) did the physician have an obligation to provide care? 2) was harm caused. Those are the two criteria. It is not necessary to show that the physician caused the harm. (kind of scary for docs, when you think about it).
gilesgoatboy 18y ago
I think the difference is that women usually pay a business a small fee for the glass tube, whereas they pay an individual handsomely for the meat tube (in my case) or get it for free (in the case of normal people). if you get the meat tube for free, it's subject to social rules, whereas if you get the glass tube for cash, it's subject to business rules. social rules say that if the meat tube is full of inferior juice, too bad. business rules say that if the meat tube baby juice isn't up to par, you get your money back. the other interesting phenomenon here: men will pay for sex without responsibilities, while women will pay to get pregnant without having sex. it's almost a continuum. at one end you have responsibilities, at the other end you have sex, and there's a clear difference in who buys what.

dawson 18y ago

"provided by a meat tube" made me spit my tea on my keyboard and laugh out loud! sigh I'm so immature.

niels_olson 18y ago

I asked a law school friend a similar question recently. The first order of business would be to rule out a violation of contract. If the sperm bank said the sperm was fit in all respects, or something like that, there might room for a battleground there. There may or may not be a medical malpractice issue, which exists independent of the contract. Malpractice issues are generally an issue of 1) did the physician have an obligation to provide care? 2) was harm caused. Those are the two criteria. It is not necessary to show that the physician caused the harm. (kind of scary for docs, when you think about it).

gilesgoatboy 18y ago

I think the difference is that women usually pay a business a small fee for the glass tube, whereas they pay an individual handsomely for the meat tube (in my case) or get it for free (in the case of normal people). if you get the meat tube for free, it's subject to social rules, whereas if you get the glass tube for cash, it's subject to business rules. social rules say that if the meat tube is full of inferior juice, too bad. business rules say that if the meat tube baby juice isn't up to par, you get your money back. the other interesting phenomenon here: men will pay for sex without responsibilities, while women will pay to get pregnant without having sex. it's almost a continuum. at one end you have responsibilities, at the other end you have sex, and there's a clear difference in who buys what.