A Woman Impregnating Herself With a Discarded Condom. Has this happened?

I recall hearing a story a few years back about a woman impregnating herself with a discarded condom. If I remember correctly, the father was also obligated to pay child support.

Did this actually happen? I searched Google, but couldn’t find the story.

Yes, this actually happened at least once:

Q.E.D. comes through again. Thanks so much, I’m doing a research paper for school and this article will come in quite handy.

Does this imply that if the sample had come from an act with someone else, who then passed it on, that no precident has yet been established?

Seeing as this is GQ, the Factual Forum, I will state for a fact that I am horrified at this decision.

Which makes it excellent essay material :smiley:

But yes, I agree.

It gets worse. I’ve found reference to one case in Alabama where the man wasn’t even concious when his sperm was taken, yet he still was ordered to pay child support:

I find that disturbing.

That story was actually in your first link also, however, your second link is more informative. That story will also be quite helpful.

In this case, couldn’t the man press rape charges?


Doesn’t (or shouldn’t) this qualify as rape?


Most states recognize sex with someone unable to consent as rape - perhaps there are still a few that don’t. And I don’t think many states retain archaic laws that imply that only men may be the perpetrators of rape. I wonder why, in this case, the man didn’t do so?

In fairness, the law has a reasonable justification. It’s not the kid’s fault his mother is an evil bitch; he still has the right to a decent income to be raised on; child support laws are not designed to punish the father but to ensure that the child’s caregiver has sufficient money to raise them.

I just wish women like that could be declared unfit parents, have the kids taken away, and preferably also charged for child support. Because I can’t imagine that a woman who would do that would be a good mother.

To my mind these are both interesting questions. I suppose the man did not press charges because of the same reasons many female victims don’t: fear of retaliation, embarrassment, insufficient evidence to make a case, etc…
This individual woman made an unethical and illegal decision to rape a man in order to get pregnant. It’s possible she might be a very good mother indeed. That does not negate the fact she should be in prison for her crime.
I also wonder why the man didn’t sue for custody.

It seems as though no matter what the circumstances, the male ends up on the hook for payment. That part of equal rights never seems to have been equalized.

dwc: It seems as though no matter what the circumstances, the male ends up on the hook for payment. That part of equal rights never seems to have been equalized.

What’s “unequal” about it? A woman who bears a child she doesn’t want is also obligated to contribute to child support, unless she and the father agree to relinquish the baby for adoption. This is true even if she didn’t consent to the sexual act that impregnated her.

It’s true that for a limited time during pregnancy, a woman has the option (at least in theory) to terminate the pregnancy, but that’s due to the biological fact that a pregnancy takes place in a woman’s body, not in a man’s. No amount of equal rights will change that fundamental difference, however unfair it seems. Nor can equal rights make men subject to the physical risks, inconveniences, and suffering of pregancy and labor, which is also unfair.

However, once a child is born, its mother and father are equally on the hook to support and nurture it, unless they can both agree to let somebody else adopt it.

What’s disturbing? That he had to pay child support OR that he achieved an erection and ejaculated while passed out?

What’s unequal is that in once case, the semen was freely supplied, but was misused without consent of the supplier, and in the second instance, the semen was obtained without consent. In neither instance should the men be charged with support, because they didn’t want to produce a child.

This is of course differerent than consensual intercourse where precautions fail, because precautions aren’t flawless-I’m not claiming that scenario.

When a man has no intention of causing impregnation and doesn’t willing or knowing behave in a fashion to cause such, actions by the female to cause same are deceptive by nature, and should eliminate any and all obligations of the male.

I do not understand. What do you mean by “for a limited time during pregnancy…”? Just how limited is “limited”? And how “theoretical” is said option?
I thought some states allowed second trimester abortions?

Fifty states allow second trimester abortions, they have to by law according to Roe v. Wade.

The ruling in Roe v. Wade specifically said that during the first trimester the woman can obtain an abortion for any reason as long as she can find a doctor that agrees that it’s a medically viable option (so the only way a woman couldn’t get one in the first trimester is if she had some condition which made abortion extremely dangerous to perform on her and no doctor was willing to take the risk.)

It went on to say that during the second trimester the State now has a more compelling interest to interfere somewhat to protect the health of the mother (this was primarily put in because 2nd trimester abortions were much more dangerous when Roe was decided than they are to day.) So a State can regulate 2nd trimester abortion in any reasonable way as long as the law in question a) is obviously designed to protect the mother’s medical health, and b) isn’t an attempt to interfere with the woman’s privacy right’s which translate to her right to have an abortion.

Roe finally said that during the third trimester a State may proscribe abortion in any case it wishes except those where the mother’s health is at risk.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey modified the ruling somewhat (in addition to OKaying parental consent laws, laws requiring doctors to give women pamphlets explaining the risks of abortion and alternatives to abortion, and striking down spousal consent) by clarifying Roe. They clarified it by “reasserting” that abortion can be proscribed from the “point of viability” and that the third trimester reference in Roe was made because at that time the third trimester was the earliest point of viability.

So now a state can make abortion illegal into the 2nd trimester if the fetus is viable at that point. But to muddle the matter even more later cases have said that the states can’t pass “hard and fast rules” right at the “standard viability line” but must rather recognize viability is a medical status and it is up to the doctor to decide if the fetus is viable (and in some states where it is viable it cannot be aborted from that point onwards, and a physician could face murder charges in some states for carrying on an abortion at this point.)

I remember a Sally Jesse Raphael show years ago that featured a woman who, while she was babysitting the children of a couple that had gone on vacation, had sex with the oldest boy (she was 16, he was 13), got pregnant, then when the boy turned 18, successfully sued for child support, retroactive for four years and some change.

So, basically, not only did she get off scot-free for molesting one of her charges, but also got managed to force the boy she molested to pay for the results of her crime.


And really, if a woman rapes a man while he’s unconscious, he shouldn’t be forced to pay child support.

I find it disturbing that a man can be forced to pay for the results of a crime committed against him.

The actual General Question seems to have been answered (pretty much immediately). On the other hand, you folks seem to be enjoying this so much that I am reluctant to close the thread. However, since there does not seem to be one single issue arising on which to convene a Great Debate, I think I’ll pass this to IMHO.

[ /Moderator Mode ]