It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Woman impregnated by mistake with black man’s sperm loses court case

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   

A legal claim by a woman who gave birth to a mixed race baby after accidentally being impregnated with a black man’s sperm has been dismissed by a judge in Illinois.
Jennifer Cramblett sought damages from the Midwest Sperm Bank of Downers Grove, Illinois for wrongful birth and breach of warranty, the Chicago Tribune reported.
Ms Cramblett told the court that she did love her mixed race daughter, Peyton, who is now aged three.
But because of her upbringing she had stereotypical attitudes about black people and had “limited cultural competency” when dealing with African-Americans.
SOURCE

I don't know where to start here. I mean, who opens a court case just because your child didn't look like what you were expecting it to look? I get that she was expecting to be impregnated with sperm from a white person but at the end of the day a child is a child. For those who argue that she had the right to sue because she received the wrong sperm, this cannot be compared to buying a white Iphone but then receiving a black one instead. It's a child, not a thing. Any mother knows the feeling of first meeting your baby shortly after giving birth, it really is an amazing moment.
Even if you gave birth to a deformed child, you'd still love it to death. Putting myself in her shoes at that moment, I would be surprised that the child wasn't what I expected it to look like but the joy of giving birth to your own baby would obviously override that within a couple of minutes and would continue to raise my child happily. But anyway, I'm glad she lost the court case and if she's not completely satisfied with that beautiful child, there are people out there who struggle to have children and would probably love the child more than her.



+15 more 
posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Boeing777

No.

These women pay thousands of dollars for carefully selected donors. You can argue about the moral aspect of such choices but this is a huge deal and really undermines the trust in fertility clinics.

So by your same logic giving the sperm of someone with a congenital disorder is perfectly acceptable when a customer has paid thousands of dollars for a good looking man with a healthy family history?

I can't agree.

Moral of the story, if you need a dude's sperm just ask your good looking gay guy friend. Obviously these bozos can't do their job or keep their word. Not like sperm is hard to come by. I never really understood the use of these places beyond the fact that they provide a lot of legal protection in regard to future lawsuits(mother suing donor dad or donor dad trying to get baby).



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: OrphanApology

The clinic did mess up on their side. Not denying that. Fertility clinics only accept sperm from healthy men. On top of that, her child is perfectly healthy.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Imagine how you'd feel growing up, knowing that your own mother tried to sue the people who helped her have you, because of your skin colour.


Sad.



@ Orphan...
Being black is not, logistically arguing, a congenital disorder...

So your analogy is, respectfully speaking, ludicrous.
edit on 6-9-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-9-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: That first sentence was a grammatical nightmare!


+5 more 
posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Boeing777

That's if the sperm was from one of their donors.

Either way the child being "healthy" doesn't change the fact that this clinic essentially performed clinical rape.

Think of another scenario, one far less clinical and wrap your brain around it. Woman decides to have baby with her very good looking white boyfriend whose features just make her all gushy inside. He has issue that requires them to use a fertility clinic. A random employee there thinks that it would be fun to just swap out the sample and put his sperm in there.

Now she ends up with a baby she did not want and did not agree to.

To me that's just another form of rape because you are using someone's body in a way that they did not agree to. She did not agree to some random black guys sperm. It doesn't matter if the baby turned out healthy or not. No more than it would matter if the baby turned out healthy from a rape. You are still forcing something on someone that they did not agree to.

To me, fertility clinics should be more concerned with this ruling then anything. Because it basically shows that they can put whatever sperm they want into the woman's body and there are no repercussions for such fraud.

Such a "sticky" situation.

Har har. Couldn't help myself.
edit on 6-9-2015 by OrphanApology because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   
She says she loves the chilld so no problem.

But of course she should get compensation as with when any medical procedure goes wrong.

She hasn't said she doesn't want the child, so I don't see why you are so riled up about it.
edit on 6-9-2015 by Nexttimemaybe because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Boeing777

I find this a touchy subject but.... The company is selling a product. She ordered one thing and she got something else. If you were searching for a car online, and saw a pic of a white car that you liked and then they deliver a black car, wouldn't that company be liable for something?



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Boeing777
The judge rejected her claim because she sued for the wrong thing...

Dismissing the case, Judge Ronald Sutter, said a “wrongful birth” claim could only be sustained where testing had failed to reveal risks of hereditary or congenital disorders.

However Ms Cramblett has been invited to resubmit her claim on the grounds of negligence.

She is due back in court on December 17.

She has a case. Just not for "wrongful birth".

I agree she should be compensated for their negligence, but that little girl is as cute as a button. Maybe she should adopt her to someone who will truly love and appreciate her, since the mother has "issues" with the color of her skin.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: OrphanApology

Good looking or not, there is no guarantee that her child will as good as her sperm donor. I've seen many good looking couples having children who don't look as good as their parents. I've also seen good looking people whose parents don't look as good as them.

She asked for a child through a sperm donor and gave birth to one. Don't like the way it looks? Give it to someone who deserves to have that beautiful child. Children are not things. You don't get to choose what exactly they'll look like either.

Rape? Let's define rape. "unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim."
As far as I know, non of this occurs in a fertility clinic.

Never forced anything on anyone. If she isn't fully satisfied with that child, she can give it to someone else.

Agree, fertility clinics should indeed be more careful.
edit on 6-9-2015 by Boeing777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Boeing777

Forcing someone to have a baby with someone they didn't agree to is rape.

If a woman decides to have sex with a white dude she is not agreeing to have a baby with every Jim, Bob, and Johnny that exists in the world.

The same goes for using a fertility clinic.

You want to define rape?

Let's.

"unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim."
edit on 6-9-2015 by OrphanApology because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Boeing777

I find this a touchy subject but.... The company is selling a product. She ordered one thing and she got something else. If you were searching for a car online, and saw a pic of a white car that you liked and then they deliver a black car, wouldn't that company be liable for something?


You can send a car back, you can't send a child back. Huge difference.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: OrphanApology

NOBODY forced her. It was negligence from the fertility clinic. She sued because the baby turned out black. Nobody is pure, everyone is mixed to an extend.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Boeing777



Rape? Let's define rape. "unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim."
As far as I know, non of this occurs in a fertility clinic.

Never forced anything on anyone. If she isn't fully satisfied with that child, she can give it to someone else.

Agree, fertility clinics should indeed be more careful.


In your example it means I can agree to have sex with a woman, she can agree to it as well, but then my friend Jimmy jumps into the bed when she's not looking, because well... she agreed to it right?



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: boncho

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Boeing777

I find this a touchy subject but.... The company is selling a product. She ordered one thing and she got something else. If you were searching for a car online, and saw a pic of a white car that you liked and then they deliver a black car, wouldn't that company be liable for something?


You can send a car back, you can't send a child back. Huge difference.


Children are not things, cars are. Huge difference.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricDipole

Agree.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricDipole
a reply to: OrphanApology

NOBODY forced her. It was negligence from the fertility clinic. She sued because the baby turned out black. Nobody is pure, everyone is mixed to an extend.


It was negligence that forced her to carry a child she didnt agree to having and keep it after she gave birth [shes not an animal]



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricDipole

originally posted by: boncho

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Boeing777

I find this a touchy subject but.... The company is selling a product. She ordered one thing and she got something else. If you were searching for a car online, and saw a pic of a white car that you liked and then they deliver a black car, wouldn't that company be liable for something?


You can send a car back, you can't send a child back. Huge difference.


Children are not things, cars are. Huge difference.


So you agree with us, the company is liable.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: boncho

Not sure what you're on about. This woman did not have sex. She simply received the wrong sperm in a frigin sperm bank.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boeing777
a reply to: boncho

Not sure what you're on about. This woman did not have sex. She simply received the wrong sperm in a frigin sperm bank.


Someone outlined the actions as "clinical rape". It fits the description. She did not agree to just any mans sperm to be inseminated with, she had guidelines which were not followed.

I don't know if "clinical rape" is a thing, I don't really need nor want it to be, but if it were, this would be the closest thing to it.

You said she "wasn't forced" into anything. but the sperm she received was not what she agreed to, by definition the sperm injected into her was forced.[there was no consent for it = forced]

She received something in her body, a medical procedure, which was not what was agreed to. Its medical malpractice if anything. Because a human life was the end result, one not initially agreed upon, I think the lab should be required to fulfil the same duty as a one time father in child support duties, along with damages for the malpractice.
edit on 6-9-2015 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-9-2015 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: boncho

originally posted by: ElectricDipole

originally posted by: boncho

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Boeing777

I find this a touchy subject but.... The company is selling a product. She ordered one thing and she got something else. If you were searching for a car online, and saw a pic of a white car that you liked and then they deliver a black car, wouldn't that company be liable for something?


You can send a car back, you can't send a child back. Huge difference.


Children are not things, cars are. Huge difference.


So you agree with us, the company is liable.


Liable? Yes, except the fact that this is a child. You just can't return it or put up for sale on the internet. Once again, children cannot be compared to anything. They're children. Obviously her mum doesn't like her because of her skin colour.




top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join