MacLennan v MacLennan 1958 S.C. 105; 1958 S.L.T. 12 (Outer House, Court of Session, Scotland) was a civil law case that required the court to determine if artificial insemination constituted adultery. Mr and Mrs MacLennan were married in August 1952 but their marriage was not a success. The couple separate shortly afterwards and Mrs MacLennan went to the U.S.A. In July 1955, she had a baby girl. Mr MacLennan sued for divorce citing adultery. Mrs MacLennan defended this action and claimed that she had conceived the child through artificial insemination not through adultery. The Court of Session was faced with defining adultery and whether or not artificial insemination could be defined as under this heading.
| Attributes | Values |
|---|
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:label
| - MacLennan v MacLennan (es)
- MacLennan v MacLennan (en)
|
| rdfs:comment
| - MacLennan v MacLennan 1958 S.C. 105; 1958 S.L.T. 12 (Outer House, Court of Session, Scotland) fue un caso civil que requirió que la corte determinara si la inseminación artificial constituía adulterio. Aquí es cuando la definición tomada de los comentarios de Lord Wheatley, involucran "contacto físico con un órgano desconocido e ilegal".El tribunal establece leyes específicas para el adulterio: 1.
* En el adulterio debe haber dos partes, físicamente presentes y manteniendo relaciones sexuales. 2.
* No es necesario que haya interacción alguna entre el esperma y el óvulo. (es)
- MacLennan v MacLennan 1958 S.C. 105; 1958 S.L.T. 12 (Outer House, Court of Session, Scotland) was a civil law case that required the court to determine if artificial insemination constituted adultery. Mr and Mrs MacLennan were married in August 1952 but their marriage was not a success. The couple separate shortly afterwards and Mrs MacLennan went to the U.S.A. In July 1955, she had a baby girl. Mr MacLennan sued for divorce citing adultery. Mrs MacLennan defended this action and claimed that she had conceived the child through artificial insemination not through adultery. The Court of Session was faced with defining adultery and whether or not artificial insemination could be defined as under this heading. (en)
|
| dcterms:subject
| |
| Wikipage page ID
| |
| Wikipage revision ID
| |
| Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
| sameAs
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| has abstract
| - MacLennan v MacLennan 1958 S.C. 105; 1958 S.L.T. 12 (Outer House, Court of Session, Scotland) was a civil law case that required the court to determine if artificial insemination constituted adultery. Mr and Mrs MacLennan were married in August 1952 but their marriage was not a success. The couple separate shortly afterwards and Mrs MacLennan went to the U.S.A. In July 1955, she had a baby girl. Mr MacLennan sued for divorce citing adultery. Mrs MacLennan defended this action and claimed that she had conceived the child through artificial insemination not through adultery. The Court of Session was faced with defining adultery and whether or not artificial insemination could be defined as under this heading. This is where the definition taken from Lord Wheatley's comments that adultery had to involve "physical contact with an alien and unlawful organ".The court lays down specific rules for adultery:1- In adultery there must be two parties, physically present and engaging in sexual act.2- It is not necessary that there is any interaction between the sperm and the ovum. The court ruled artificial insemination does not constitute adultery. However, Mrs MacLennan could not provide the court with any proof of her taking artificial insemination. Mr MacLennan therefore got his divorce. (en)
- MacLennan v MacLennan 1958 S.C. 105; 1958 S.L.T. 12 (Outer House, Court of Session, Scotland) fue un caso civil que requirió que la corte determinara si la inseminación artificial constituía adulterio. El señor y la señora MacLennan se casaron en agosto de 1952 pero su matrimonio no fue exitoso. La pareja se separó poco después y la señora MacLennan fue a los Estados Unidos. En julio de 1955 ella tuvo una bebé. El señor MacLennan la demandó por divorcio alegando adulterio. La señora MacLennan defendió su acción diciendo que ella concibió a su bebé mediante inseminación artificial, no por adulterio. La se enfrentó a la definición de adulterio y si la inseminación artificial podía ser definida o no como adulterio. Aquí es cuando la definición tomada de los comentarios de Lord Wheatley, involucran "contacto físico con un órgano desconocido e ilegal".El tribunal establece leyes específicas para el adulterio: 1.
* En el adulterio debe haber dos partes, físicamente presentes y manteniendo relaciones sexuales. 2.
* No es necesario que haya interacción alguna entre el esperma y el óvulo. La corte declaró que la inseminación artificial no constituye adulterio. Sin embargo, la señora MacLennan no presentó ante la corte ninguna prueba de ella tomando inseminación artificial. El señor MacLennan obtuvo el divorcio. (es)
|
| gold:hypernym
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)
![[cxml]](/fct/images/cxml_doc.png)
![[csv]](/fct/images/csv_doc.png)
![[text]](/fct/images/ntriples_doc.png)
![[turtle]](/fct/images/n3turtle_doc.png)
![[ld+json]](/fct/images/jsonld_doc.png)
![[rdf+json]](/fct/images/json_doc.png)
![[rdf+xml]](/fct/images/xml_doc.png)
![[atom+xml]](/fct/images/atom_doc.png)
![[html]](/fct/images/html_doc.png)