No reproductive rights for men

[Derec]

"Reproductive rights" are a big topic for feminists, but only for females. But when it comes to reproductive rights for men, they tend to be silent.
Like in this case. A judge awarded frozen embryos to the ex-girlfriend to implant even though the ex-boyfriend objects and they have a written agreement that they both must consent for the embryos to be used.
Judge awards frozen embryos to 42-year-old doctor who froze fertilized eggs with boyfriend who now says he no longer wants children after lengthy legal battle. The judge in question is Sophia Hall, obviously a female and probably thinks of herself as a feminist.

Modern America - a female's wishes trump both men's reproductive rights and prior written agreements. Kind of like judges capriciously setting aside pre-nups because the woman wants more money.

Next step, no doubt, will be to sue the ex-boyfriend for child support as well.

 

[Rhea]

The judge in question is Sophia Hall, obviously a female and probably thinks of herself as a feminist.

You don't waste any time with the assumptions and leaping to conclusions to vilify a character, do you!
You don't know shit about what she probably thinks.

 

[Rhea]

The case has lots of twists, and I feel sympathy for both sides. I can see from the article that the man does, too. He even agreed to let her use them if his name and data could have been erased. The woman was also fine with this, understanding the man's position. The hospital refused. It would have been great if the case had been about forcing the hospital to accede to that wish.

Also, note for future. Get some of those embryos fertilized by him, and some by a random sperm donor.

i also hate the woman's lawyer's comment that now that it's fertilized, he can't back out since it's not just sperm any more. No no, bad precedent. It's still an embryo, don't go babyifying it.

 

[ksen]

Not *all* men do this.

 

[Petrel]

Technology creates its own brand new moral issues, doesn't it?

Reproductive rights used to be about not being forced to carry and give birth to an unwanted child: that is, 2-20 hours of pain, following 9 months of discomfort, partial incapacity, frequently loss of employment, ostracism and social stigma for the unmarried woman; 18-30 years of domestic servitude for the married one, while either of the men walked out whenever he liked.

Now, it's about contractual obligation and changing one's mind. At least, in the class that can best afford to have children and/or lawyers in the first place.
It still doesn't apply to the class that most needs reproductive control.

I really don't see this as a gender issue, and I don't think men and women need any hockey-fans cheering for conflict.

 

[Sabine Grant]

"Reproductive rights" are a big topic for feminists, but only for females. But when it comes to reproductive rights for men, they tend to be silent.
Like in this case. A judge awarded frozen embryos to the ex-girlfriend to implant even though the ex-boyfriend objects and they have a written agreement that they both must consent for the embryos to be used.
Judge awards frozen embryos to 42-year-old doctor who froze fertilized eggs with boyfriend who now says he no longer wants children after lengthy legal battle. The judge in question is Sophia Hall, obviously a female and probably thinks of herself as a feminist.

Modern America - a female's wishes trump both men's reproductive rights and prior written agreements. Kind of like judges capriciously setting aside pre-nups because the woman wants more money.

Next step, no doubt, will be to sue the ex-boyfriend for child support as well.

Which alternative do you believe the Judge could have legally relied on rather than rendering a judgement in favor of her using those frozen embryos?

Would it be a judgement declaring she cannot use the embryos without her ex boy friend's consent therefor the said embryos becoming useless? Which implies that whichever facility storing them being stuck with embryos no one can legally claim to use.

The only detail we have from the article regarding the Judge's reasoning is this :

The judge said Dunstan's "desire to have a biological child in the face of the impossibility of having one without using the embryos outweighs" Szafranski's privacy concerns.

It appears the Judge considered the uniqueness of Dunstan's situation rendered unable to have a biological child to be the compelling argument in support of a ruling legally empowering Dunstan to use the embryos without her ex boy friend's consent. It is a fact that without those embryos, Dunstan would be unable to have a biological child.

I am not sure which specific treatment for NHD Lymphoma rendered her infertile though I will assume that she received a chemo formula known as C.H.O.P: C:cytoxan® (cyclophosphamide)
H: Adriamycin® (hydroxy doxorubicin)
O: vincristine (Oncovin®)
P: Prednisone

Highly toxic indeed and damaging the viability of her eggs.

The Judge seems to have considered which of the 2 disputing parties would suffer most. Would it be Dunstan remaining unable to have a biological son or daughter or her former boy friend's privacy being dismissed?

I will let you reflect on that.




Further and regarding,

Next step, no doubt, will be to sue the ex-boyfriend for child support as well. :mad

Even if your "no doubt" were to be validated, you seem to not realize that the court transcripts of this dispute over the embryos would be recorded and stand as an antecedent confirming that her boy friend had opposed her use of the embryos. Declaring clearly and without any ambiguity that his initial motivation in willingly contributing his sperm was solely on the basis of his agreeing for their future use. Meaning that he cannot any longer be considered as a willing contributor in view of their initial agreement having been invalidated by the court judgement. Meaning that she would have an extremely difficult time convincing a court to order child support payments.

 

[Sabine Grant]

The case has lots of twists, and I feel sympathy for both sides. I can see from the article that the man does, too. He even agreed to let her use them if his name and data could have been erased. The woman was also fine with this, understanding the man's position. The hospital refused. It would have been great if the case had been about forcing the hospital to accede to that wish.

I suspect that a court would not be able to compel the medical facility to erase the data and his identity. IMO it would set a bad precedent that licensed medical facilities could legally alter medical records. The maintenance of medical records implies a serious liability factor. I do not see how a court of law could issue an order resulting in the alteration of medical records.

 

[laughing dog]

The judge in question is Sophia Hall, obviously a female and probably thinks of herself as a feminist.

You don't waste any time with the assumptions and leaping to conclusions to vilify a character, do you!
You don't know shit about what she probably thinks.

I beg to differ - he does know absolutely shit.

Of course, any decisions in this case favors one party over the other. Denying the embroyos to the woman would mean, under "Derec's logic", giving reproductive rights to men over women.

This decision is reasonable. For example, if the woman was pregnant, the man could not force her to have an abortion.

Personally, I don't see a problem with this ruling if it also means the man has no future obligations to the child.
's

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that this is a poor decision. They had both signed an agreement that the embryos would not be used without both of their consent, so if one of them does not give consent the embryos should not be used. Full stop.

When you agree to a contract, you should be bound to the terms of the contract. It shouldn't matter how valid or spurious the reasons for his withdrawing his consent were or which of the two of them is more harmed by the decision going one way or another. They are two adults who voluntarily agreed to the terms and the law should be holding them to those terms as opposed to ignoring them.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The Judge seems to have considered which of the 2 disputing parties would suffer most. Would it be Dunstan remaining unable to have a biological son or daughter or her former boy friend's privacy being dismissed?

I will let you reflect on that.

Well, it's not clear that a woman has a *right* to reproduction itself, whereas most people do believe in the right to privacy. So, I would say that the privacy of the potential father trumps the desire for the woman to have a baby of her own. She has the option to adopt, whereas the potential father will not have the option to not be a father if she uses embryos fertilized by his sperm. Perhaps it would have been better to have eggs frozen, which could then be fertilized by different sperm. However, I don't know the technical details of the case that might explain why that wasn't done.

 

[Rhea]

This decision is reasonable. For example, if the woman was pregnant, the man could not force her to have an abortion.

I'm not sure I can go with that. Because she is not pregnant and he should be able to stop her from _getting_ pregnant with his sperm. Especial since they did sign a contract not to use them unless both agreed.

I feel for her. The contract was signed when she was extremely vulnerable. But she was competent - and it clearly stated that both must agree to her getting pregnant with those eggs.

The hardest part is that he offered a compromise, she was willing to accept that compromise - and other factors kept them from being able to work it out.

But I feel like she still has to accept that those embryos are not already kids, they are not just hers, and the man is deeply anxious now, too. Tough situation, but I really feel it is the _man's_ right to say, "I feel terrible for your situation, go ahead and use them," and not some Judge's right.

 

[doubtingt]

The judge in question is Sophia Hall, obviously a female and probably thinks of herself as a feminist.

You don't waste any time with the assumptions and leaping to conclusions to vilify a character, do you!
You don't know shit about what she probably thinks.

I beg to differ - he does know absolutely shit.

Of course, any decisions in this case favors one party over the other. Denying the embroyos to the woman would mean, under "Derec's logic", giving reproductive rights to men over women.

This decision is reasonable. For example, if the woman was pregnant, the man could not force her to have an abortion.

Personally, I don't see a problem with this ruling if it also means the man has no future obligations to the child.
's

A judge is completely disregarding the clear cut and explicit terms of a contract fully agreed to by both parties in favor of his personal emotional feelings about who he thinks is more impacted by the use of non-use of the eggs. That is an attack on the rule of law and everything that enables a legal system based on something other than purely arbitrary emotions of the person who happens to be sitting on the bench.

 

[Terrell]

I think that this is a poor decision. They had both signed an agreement that the embryos would not be used without both of their consent, so if one of them does not give consent the embryos should not be used. Full stop.

When you agree to a contract, you should be bound to the terms of the contract. It shouldn't matter how valid or spurious the reasons for his withdrawing his consent were or which of the two of them is more harmed by the decision going one way or another. They are two adults who voluntarily agreed to the terms and the law should be holding them to those terms as opposed to ignoring them.

Agree with this one. Two competent adults voluntarily entered into a contract on the matter, the terms of said contract should be enforced. Feelings on the matter should be irrelevant. If contracts cannot or will not be enforced by law, then they're not worth the paper they're printed on.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Is there much outcry from prolifers on this? If its a fertilized egg, then they think its a baby, right? A baby being frozen????? The image of freezing actual babies would be something from a scifi horror film. Do they see this as different?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Is there much outcry from prolifers on this? If its a fertilized egg, then they think its a baby, right? A baby being frozen????? The image of freezing actual babies would be something from a scifi horror film. Do they see this as different?

I'd be curious to know the number of fertilized embryos destroyed or let go to waste in fertility clinics and research labs per year for comparison to the number of abortions of living fetuses. Certainly, there doesn't seem to me much outrage about the former, and no one discusses the implications for these clinics should one of these "personhood" amendments ever get passed. This could be explained if one were to assume that the pro-life (i.e., anti-abortion) movement is more about the control of women and their reproduction than about the "lives" of the fetuses.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Is there much outcry from prolifers on this? If its a fertilized egg, then they think its a baby, right? A baby being frozen????? The image of freezing actual babies would be something from a scifi horror film. Do they see this as different?

I'd be curious to know the number of fertilized embryos destroyed or let go to waste in fertility clinics and research labs per year for comparison to the number of abortions of living fetuses. Certainly, there doesn't seem to me much outrage about the former, and no one discusses the implications for these clinics should one of these "personhood" amendments ever get passed. This could be explained if one were to assume that the pro-life (i.e., anti-abortion) movement is more about the control of women and their reproduction than about the "lives" of the fetuses.

Wasn't there a thing about that during one of Dubya's presidential campaigns where he went and posed with a bunch of kids who'd been born from frozen embryos and he was talking about how throwing out old embryos was murder or some such thing? I don't want to derail the discussion too far by having people go on about that, but I'm pretty sure that it was a thing at least once.

 

[fromderinside]

When you agree to a contract, you should be bound to the terms of the contract. It shouldn't matter how valid or spurious the reasons for his withdrawing his consent were or which of the two of them is more harmed by the decision going one way or another. They are two adults who voluntarily agreed to the terms and the law should be holding them to those terms as opposed to ignoring them.

So you're saying that property rights trump reproductive rights which is what was adjudicated. So if the male is infertile do to some incident after embryos were formed the guy would have to lose his potential rights to continue his family's legacy all because some bitch was able to enforce a contract after a bad divorce. (I think I have to put it in the most chauvinistic terms to get some people's attention. BTW the guy in OP case is a son-of-a-bitch.)

 

[Tom Sawyer]

When you agree to a contract, you should be bound to the terms of the contract. It shouldn't matter how valid or spurious the reasons for his withdrawing his consent were or which of the two of them is more harmed by the decision going one way or another. They are two adults who voluntarily agreed to the terms and the law should be holding them to those terms as opposed to ignoring them.

So you're saying that property rights trump reproductive rights which is what was adjudicated. So if the male is infertile do to some incident after embryos were formed the guy would have to lose his potential rights to continue his family's legacy all because some bitch was able to enforce a contract after a bad divorce. (I think I have to put it in the most chauvinistic terms to get some people's attention. BTW the guy in OP case is a son-of-a-bitch.)

Yes. It should have been adjudicated as a case of property rights and not one of reproductive rights since the embryo wasn't implanted anywhere, so it's no different than any other piece of meat in a freezer.

Infertility is irrelevant. They were both well aware when they signed the contract that the cancer treatments had a likelihood of causing infertility, so the fact that she's infertile (or that he would have been in your alternate scenario) doesn't affect the terms of the contract at all, since it's not any new kind of situation.

Whether somebody is a son-of-a-bitch is irrelevant. Judges should not be making rulings based on "Well, that guy's a dick so contracts with him don't need to be honoured", so it doesn't matter if he's doing it for the best reasons in the world or the worst reasons in the world - adults should still be bound to the contracts which they sign.

 

[J842P]

Is there much outcry from prolifers on this? If its a fertilized egg, then they think its a baby, right? A baby being frozen????? The image of freezing actual babies would be something from a scifi horror film. Do they see this as different?

I'd be curious to know the number of fertilized embryos destroyed or let go to waste in fertility clinics and research labs per year for comparison to the number of abortions of living fetuses. Certainly, there doesn't seem to me much outrage about the former, and no one discusses the implications for these clinics should one of these "personhood" amendments ever get passed. This could be explained if one were to assume that the pro-life (i.e., anti-abortion) movement is more about the control of women and their reproduction than about the "lives" of the fetuses.

Eh. I seem to recall at least a few pro-life groups that are vehemently against in vitro fertilization for this very reason. The Catholic Church comes to mind.

 

[Bronzeage]

"Reproductive rights" are a big topic for feminists, but only for females. But when it comes to reproductive rights for men, they tend to be silent.
Like in this case. A judge awarded frozen embryos to the ex-girlfriend to implant even though the ex-boyfriend objects and they have a written agreement that they both must consent for the embryos to be used.
Judge awards frozen embryos to 42-year-old doctor who froze fertilized eggs with boyfriend who now says he no longer wants children after lengthy legal battle. The judge in question is Sophia Hall, obviously a female and probably thinks of herself as a feminist.

Modern America - a female's wishes trump both men's reproductive rights and prior written agreements. Kind of like judges capriciously setting aside pre-nups because the woman wants more money.

Next step, no doubt, will be to sue the ex-boyfriend for child support as well.

Your thread is well titled. Men, in fact, do not have any reproductive rights. Some people say this is not fair and they maybe right. It remains one of those things about life where women seem to get a free ride.

The free ride includes playing host to a life threatening parasite which may become a live human being if all goes well. If things don't go well, there are a number of complications which threaten her health and life. It's a dangerous thing. I have never been pregnant, but have been closely associated with hazardous pregnancies. I remember very clearly an early morning in November of 1975, when I was allowed into the delivery suite(unusual in those days), because they thought my wife was going to go into a coma and die. No matter what happened, I would be just fine. This maybe why we assign all reproductive rights to women.

It sucks to be a man, but a lot of things about being a man are tough. That's why we say, "Man up," when we think someone is whining and doesn't want to do the things a man ought to do.

The rules of the reproductive game for human men are pretty clear. If your sperm exit your body and you leave them in the care of a woman, you may be required to support a child which your sperm helped create. This seems straightforward enough, but some men still have a problem getting it. There are no do overs, no take backs and no crossed fingers. This is serious man stuff and any man who doesn't like it, should keep his sperm to himself. A man may say, "You can't have my sperm, but he can't say, give back my sperm." It doesn't work that way.

It's as simple as that. Just as a man has no reproductive right, there is also a total non-existence of a sexual right. No one on this planet has a right to have sex. No one on this planet is required to have sex. There is no biological benefit to the human body, so lack of sex is not a health risk. So, the man who does not have sex, has lost nothing.