Great Questions of Modern Jurisprudence
My brother sends me this story with the message, "Be careful what you throw away":
An appeals court said a man can press a claim for emotional distress after learning a former lover had used his sperm to have a baby. But he can't claim theft, the ruling said, because the sperm were hers to keep.
According to the AP, the woman "secretly kept semen after they had oral sex, then used it to get pregnant." The plaintiff learned his sperm's fate almost two years later, when he was hit with a paternity suit.
I'm not sure what a libertarian theory of property would have to say about the disputed jism. Lockeans should note that in this case, the mixing came nine months before the labor.
