Man Accuses Woman Of Stealing His Sperm During Oral Sex To Make A Secret Baby

This incident occurred a few years ago, but it’s no urban legend. In fact, it was reported on NBC News.  Maybe it’s a cautionary tale for men who don’t think that a doctor can be as scandalous as a stripper or who think that there is only one way for a woman to get pregnant.

Two doctors ended up fighting it out in court after a male doctor attempted to argue that he deserves damages for emotional distress after the woman allegedly stole his sperm to make a baby without his permission.  He also wanted to charge the woman with theft, but instead, the court ruled that it was a “gift.”


Dr. Richard O. Phillips claimed that Dr. Sharon Irons gave him “oral pleasure” and allowed him to release his baby making juice into her mouth.  From that point on, he claims that the woman secretly saved his bodily fluids so that she could insert them into a test tube to create her own pregnancy.
The good doctor was extremely careful not to get the woman pregnant by only having a certain kind of intimacy with her, but she apparently had other plans.  The man says that he was stunned to find out two years later that he was the subject of a paternity suit from a woman who never let him know what she was doing after their little “get togethers.”

Dr. Phillips was ordered to pay $800 per month in child support for the baby he didn’t know he made.  Dr. Phillips also says that after finding out about the baby, he felt that he was “trapped in a nightmare.” A higher court supported Dr. Phillips’ claim after a lower court dismissed it, stating that the woman “deceitfully engaged in sexual acts, which no reasonable person would expect could result in pregnancy, to use plaintiff’s sperm in an unorthodox, unanticipated manner yielding extreme consequences.”

But the court also says that the man’s “deposit” into the woman was simply a “gift”: “An absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a done.” Who knew that your bodily fluids involved a transfer of title.
The court also stated that: “There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request.”