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> The victim, Dr. Richard O. Phillips, then sued 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> The victim, Dr. Richard O. Phillips, then sued 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 occurred many years ago the outcome of this court case is not clear from public records.
   
 
== See Also ==
 
== See Also ==

Revision as of 03:25, 1 January 2022

Dr Sharon Irons was accused by a former lover of spurgling sperm from a condom used during oral sex.[1] The victim, Dr. Richard O. Phillips, then sued 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 occurred many years ago the outcome of this court case is not clear from public records.

See Also

References