I really wanted the comments to be useful, seeing as how it's a legal blog, but they were mostly hateful and disbelieving. So I'll try here:

Why didn't his lawyer try for intentional tort?

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of tort law is that causing someone to suffer a civil loss or wrong through a legal or illegal act. By securing this man's sperm and using it for insemination without his consent, she has created a child that he is now legally and morally obligated to support. He had no expectation of paternity in this case and had expressly stated his opposition to such given the conditions, yet her behavior not only directly countermanded his intentions but also obligated him to non-negligible financial obligations, as well as legal responsibility for the life of another human being.

Crying emotional distress and stolen property seems like the silliest possible approach - "distress" is subjective and "property" clearly runs afoul of all sorts of law associated with discarded material. I wouldn't have gone with conversion, but I don't know what I would have gone with because, as mentioned, I am not a lawyer.

This seems obvious to me which likely means I don't fully understand tort law. Anybody here willing to take a swing at educating me?