Difference between revisions of "Sharon Irons"

From Wiki 4 Men
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
Dr Sharon Irons was accused by a former lover of [[spurgling]] sperm from a condom used during oral sex.<ref>https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2005-02-25-0502250262-story.html</ref> While the victim, Dr. Richard O. Phillips, was suing for emotional distress a court in Chicago ruled that he could not sue over the use of the sperm as it was considered by the court to be a gift.
 
Dr Sharon Irons was accused by a former lover of [[spurgling]] sperm from a condom used during oral sex.<ref>https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2005-02-25-0502250262-story.html</ref> While the victim, Dr. Richard O. Phillips, was suing for emotional distress a court in Chicago ruled that he could not sue over the use of the sperm as it was considered by the court to be a gift.
 
<ref>https://www.glennsacks.com/column.php?id=109</ref><ref>http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7024930/ns/health-sexual_health/t/sperm-gift-keeps-giving</ref><ref>https://rollingout.com/2014/02/04/woman-uses-sperm-oral-sex-get-pregnant-force-man-pay-child-support</ref><ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/fathers4equality/comments/1a2x6g/sperm_crimes/</ref>
<ref>https://www.glennsacks.com/column.php?id=109</ref>
 
<ref>http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7024930/ns/health-sexual_health/t/sperm-gift-keeps-giving</ref><ref>https://rollingout.com/2014/02/04/woman-uses-sperm-oral-sex-get-pregnant-force-man-pay-child-support</ref><ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/fathers4equality/comments/1a2x6g/sperm_crimes/</ref>
 
   
 
Despite having occured many years ago the outcome of this court case is not clear from public records.
 
Despite having occured many years ago the outcome of this court case is not clear from public records.

Revision as of 08:59, 25 October 2020

Dr Sharon Irons was accused by a former lover of spurgling sperm from a condom used during oral sex.[1] While the victim, Dr. Richard O. Phillips, was suing for emotional distress a court in Chicago ruled that he could not sue over the use of the sperm as it was considered by the court to be a gift. [2][3][4][5]

Despite having occured many years ago the outcome of this court case is not clear from public records.

See Also

References