Bob, the founder of a Silicon Valley business on a high-growth trajectory, meets Alice, and they enter into a romantic relationship.

Sure enough, Alice informs Bob that she wants to be the wifey.

Bob, without hesitation, replies Alice that, if at all, only on as strict of non-exchange prenup conditions as allowed under the law; Alice agrees, and that Bob, under no circumstances, agree to be a father.

Alice agrees, and conveys no intention until any premeditated agreement is reached otherwise on parenthood. Bob and Alice continues in a romantic relationship where sex is, with reasonable caution, prevents impregnation.

Soon after and with the above-described prenup, Bob proposes to Alice. Alice, after seeking legal advice, presumably found no loophole on the document, she tries negotiating, but Bob stands his grounds, and informs Alice there is no room for haggle.


One night, Alice and Bob engages in a consensual sexual intercourse on the previously agreed non-baby, non-fatherhood, non-motherhood and non-impregnation conditions. At the moment when Bob ejaculates on the abdomen of Alice — something done on several occasions between the couple —, Alice, without the express consent or any implied indication of Bob, starts to shovel the reproductive matter of Bob into her genital tract, and continues and substantially finishes against the firm and express objection of Bob.

Alice also refuses to use water, soap or any female hygienic products to remove any reproductive matter of Bob; and refuses to use any postcoital contraception and so she remains with Bob’s continued objection to the potential fertilization and request that Alice prevents or ceases impregnation.


[Alice have obtained the reproductive matter of Bob without Bob’s consent and against his objection]

Alice becomes pregnant, and Bob a father.

What crime or crimes did Alice commit; presume Alice premeditatedly obtained the reproductive matter of Bob on the premise she would not use it for a consensually prohibited purpose?

  • 2
    Considering men can be on the hook for child support even when they have been raped, Bob is hopeless. usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/…
    – Ryan_L
    Commented Sep 7, 2021 at 17:46
  • Also, it's totally about the child's best interest! Not the one that got raped, but the one that was a result of the rape. Clearly, nothing to do with the fact the government doesn't want to set a "bad precedent" that in certain situations, it's on the government to provide for a child. Governments typically care the most about children, and glad to provide for them. Look at the hundreds of indigenous children 6-feet under Canadian soil.
    – kisspuska
    Commented Sep 7, 2021 at 20:19
  • "Focus on the Child — […]The state requires [rapist, self-made mothers] seeking public assistance under the state's welfare programs to first pursue child support. The child-support payments then are used to help reimburse the state for assistance payments." See what I did there? 😏
    – kisspuska
    Commented Sep 7, 2021 at 20:26
  • Whoever had the first comment deleted, and suddenly downvoted just proved the point; thank you!
    – kisspuska
    Commented Sep 8, 2021 at 2:51

1 Answer 1


There is no cognizable grounds for a criminal prosecution in those circumstances.

There are also no cognizable grounds for Bob to deny paternity, or to bring a civil action against Alice. Bob will be obligated to pay child support and to have all of the responsibilities of an unmarried co-parent with Alice.

  • Could this play out differently at least on civil grounds as a result of documentary evidence in the form of entire-agreement, severability, foreign jurisdiction clauses?
    – kisspuska
    Commented Sep 5, 2021 at 0:26
  • 2
    @kisspuska Probably not. I very much doubt that a contract on this subject matter would be enforceable, invoking some sort of policy grounds. There is a class of lawsuits called "wrongful life" lawsuits, but those are generally cases involving products liability (e.g. defective condoms), or medical malpractice (delivering a horribly congenitally impaired baby instead of carrying out an abortion as planned).
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Sep 5, 2021 at 0:33
  • IVF clinics’ contracts imposing similar duties on Alice? (All stupid, of course, cause the silver digger would sign a prenup, too, so never gonna happen, just in the hypothetical of the hypothetical.)
    – kisspuska
    Commented Sep 5, 2021 at 0:36
  • 2
    @kisspuska It is getting too far afield and to factually fuzzy to evaluate.
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Sep 5, 2021 at 0:37
  • 1
    @kisspuska " I hope you sympathize with anyone who doesn’t want to be a parent and deceived into be — regardless of sex" Not all that much. It isn't a situation that keeps me up at night. It is quite different from rape. There is a lot to be said for the motto "All's fair in love and war" even though there are some very extreme exceptions to that general rule.
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Sep 5, 2021 at 0:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .