Originally Posted by milkman:
I'm sorry, but if I leave my gift inside a woman's mouth, then it wouldn't be unreasonable of me to assume that there wouldn't be a child.
You beleive happened that way, hes frigging lying , thats the most redicilous story I have ever heard, if you guys beleive this I have a beachfront condo in arizona to sell you [Reply]
Originally Posted by badgirl:
You beleive happened that way, hes frigging lying , thats the most redicilous story I have ever heard, if you guys beleive this I have a beachfront condo in arizona to sell you
Your reading comprehension is lacking. Do you think the woman is lying, too? [Reply]
Originally Posted by badgirl:
You beleive happened that way, hes frigging lying , thats the most redicilous story I have ever heard, if you guys beleive this I have a beachfront condo in arizona to sell you
The woman is the one who said she did it.... [Reply]
"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," the decision said. "There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request."
In other words, she's not contesting the way in which it happened. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Phobia:
This is for the people who can't read:
"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," the decision said. "There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request."
In other words, she's not contesting the way in which it happened.