See, honey? It's a "gift".

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Missed that line. Yeah, definite fraud action here. Don't quite understand why that part was dropped. Theft, sure, but not the fraud.

Probably because it didn't meet the exact definition of fraud for that jurisdiction. Something you learn really quickly in law school is that words don't mean what you think they mean. To prove something like fraud, you have to prove that someone did all the things (elements) that that specific jurisdiction considers the necessary elements of that offense. What's fraud in my state may not be exactly the same as fraud in your state.

Making appropriate and functional laws is harder than it looks. For example, in general, it's considered good policy that your body parts aren't property, and therefore can't be sold. I won't go into the pros and cons, but you can't sell your kidneys. But there are some exceptions for things like blood and sperm, either because we want to encourage "donation" or because we want to allow people to "donate" if they choose.

So, in a very simplified fashion, the existing state of affairs is that you can't treat body parts like property, except for blood and sperm/eggs. Except that "giving" your sperm to a lover isn't the same as giving them a book or a box of chocolates. That's why laws get re-written and refined.

Sorry for going all Professor Prudence. School is like a drug. I can quit any time!