Brain Fertilizer

Exhibit A.

Exhibit B.

Exhibit B is particularly interesting, actually, in that it touches upon something I've been trying to add to the discussion for years (but no pro-choice/pro-stem cell research advocate is willing to address):

The concept that abortions are the sole choice and responsibility of the woman because "it's her body" cannot stand without ignoring that the "fetus" (or: baby, or blastocyst, or what-have-you) has different genetic material than the woman. It cannot, therefore, be acting on control of "her own body", can it?

As the push for stem cell research grows stronger, genetic material will have a dollar value, and it would only be a matter of time before a man sued for control of his genetic material after it left his body.

This case was a different development than I anticipated, but it is the same thing: he is asserting the rights to his genetic material and the disposal thereof. The idea that--

The judges backed the lower court decision to dismiss the fraud and theft claims, agreeing with Irons that she didn't steal the sperm.

"She asserts that when plaintiff 'delivered' his sperm, it was a gift - an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee.

--is incompatible with the idea of child support.

There are multiple conflicting principles at work in this court case. It will be interesting to see how they play out. It won't be in the favor of liberal ideology, I don't think.