Say what?

I read this article in this morning's Post-Gazette and was immediately stunned. I also then remember a certain quote from a cute little movie about a ditsy blonde trying to become a lawyer...

Warner: "According to Swinney v. Neubert, Swinney, who was also a private sperm donor, was allowed visitation rights as long as he came to terms with the hours set forth by the parents. So, if we're sticking to past precedent, Mr. Latimer wasn't stalking - he was clearly within his rights to ask for visitation."

Prof. Donovan: "But Swinney was a one-time sperm donor, and in our case, the defendant was a habitual sperm donor, who also happens to be harassing the parents in his quest for visitation."

Warner: "But, without this man's sperm - the child in question would not exist."

Prof. Donovan: "Now you're thinking like a lawyer....Ms. Woods?"

Elle: "Although Mr. Huntington makes an excellent point, I have to wonder if the defendant kept a thorough record of each sperm emission made throughout his life?"

Prof. Donovan: "Why do you ask?"

Elle: "Well, unless the defendent attempted to contact every single one-night-stand to determine if a child resulted from those unions - then he has no parental claim whatsoever over this child. Why this sperm? Why now? For that matter, all masturbatory emissions where his sperm was clearly not seeking an egg could be termed reckless abandonment."

Prof. Donovan: "I believe you've just won your case."

0 comments from the peanut gallery ·