There may be articles about these things, but that's because they are rare things, otherwise they wouldn't get published. 99.99% of women wouldn't do that. If you really think that many women would do something like that you probably haven't had a healthy relation in your life, lol. Ask people on these forums if it ever happened to them and you'll find it's not "very common".

Just think of this, there are thousands of times more car accidents than cases like these. How many people you know died in a car accident? Now divide it by 10,000 and that's the chances of something like that happening to you.

I agree though than when a woman and man divorce the kid goes 95% of the times to the woman, very often without reason, and that the guy has to pay loads of money, probably more than the woman end up paying for his upbringing. That's common.

Well, I know lots of women who use getting pregnant to entrap guys. It's never happened to me though.

Still, whether or not it's common is not the problem. The problem is that these crazy women should not be ecnouraged by being allowed to get away with it.

This is actually not true. I've read about many cases where women found out who their sper donors were, and then sued them for alimony and won. Essentially, the laws are outdated and don't take into consideration modern phenomenae. A sperm donor should not be liable for child support in any situation.

And women should stop thinking that they're entitled to have children through sperm clinics, and then have men support these children. This woman is a perfect example. It's irrelevant that her son was dying. She wanted him, she had him with stolent sperm, she should provide for him. This guy is in no way responsable for the brats this woman had, he has his own family and his own children to take care of. He shouldn't be drained of his life savings by those 3 leeches.

And I find it hard to believe that any court release him of his obligation to pay child support, sadly. He should sue the sperm bank, but morally he shouldn't have to pay child support at all. He should also make sure this woman's arrested for stealing his property. That's definately what I would do.

Oh?  Prove it... and prove it's a common phenomna.

Also, i think your ignoring that in the cases it does happen.  They aren't ruling for the women.

They are ruling for the child.

A smart move for people caught in rulings like this who lose appeals would be to demand custody rights because their other parent literally went behind their back to have a kid.

In this case it's not the man's fault that the child exists, so he should not be liable to pay alimony. The woman stole the sperm to concieve the child, she should have to care for it. The persons who participates in the creation of the child are suppose to care for it, which excludes the man in this case. And rulgin for the child is the same thing as ruling for the woman, as she's the one who recieves the money.

Also, why would he sue for custody? That would only work if you genuenly want the child.

No... ruling for the child isn't the same thing as ruling for the woman... because you know.  If he wins custody, she now has to pay him.

In general if the man gets custody she now has to pay him.  The only reason it doesn't work both ways is because currently men can't give birth and they don't have "test tube" babies yet.

And from the sound of it... he wouldn't mind the children.

He won't win custody, unless he presses charges against her and has her arrested. I hope that the courts would deem him the better parent in that case.

However in most cases the man won't get custody (like for example the case of the second link I gave).

It's also quite irrelevant that the man can get custody, and then recieve alimony, in these types situations I mean. This man may not midn the kids (though they have caused and will cause a huge financial strain on him), but many men may mind the kids existence, and the fact that they have to support the brats.

In the second case the judge was correct.

The man gave her the sperm.

That she used it is his own fault for not making sure it was properly disposed of.

The only reason the first case was wrong is because they were supposed to have joint custody of the sperm and she forged his signature.

In the second case he didn't give her the sperm. He was just letting her hold it.

In the first case I don't think they had "joint custody" of the sperm. There's no such thing. It was his sperm, and she stole it.In both cases the women used men's sperm without their permition in order to get pregnant. They should not be liable to pay alimony.

A)  Er no.  They did have joint custody of the sperm... there is such a thing as joint custody when married all property is joint custody.   The sperm was frozen in a sperm bank... while they were married.

Which means it belonged to both of them.  Once it comes out of you it's a possesion just like anything else.

Look at blood.

B) He gave her his sperm.  After giving it to her... he has no say in how she uses it.

If I gave you a PS3 because you talked about how you wanted a movie player, do i have any right to sue you after I see you playing a PS3 game?  Afterall, i never gave you permission to play a PS3 game.