No reproductive rights for men

[Rhea]

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.

Do we really think this is an adequate reason to break contractual agreements?
Sometimes a party gets bad luck and doesn't get the return/result/outcome they were hoping from the contract. Break the contract because one party is worse off with the contract than the other without?

I can see all kinds of terrible cases that would produce...

 

[Jokodo]

"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.

Does the ruling in question imply that the man will be going through childbirth after ten months of pregnancy?

I think you know what the answer is - and it's not what it would have to be in order to be a mirror image of an unwanted pregnancy.

This scenario is not analogous to anything we commonly see, just with the genders reversed, as you seem to insinuate. The only thing it would be analogous to is a scenario where a man and a woman have banked fertilised eggs which they intended to be carried to term by a surrogate mother when the man becomes infertile, and the man wishing to go ahead with the surrogate mother and raise the child with his new wife. We don't know how the judge would have decided in that scenario, but chances are that whe would have made the same decision based on the same reasoning.

There are a lot of reasons to criticize the ruling - but "if we allow abortions, we have to allow this guy to stop this pregnancy too" isn't one of them. It's gibberish.

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.

If and when she does is the time to get outraged about that. So far, she hasn't, and I see no indication that she will.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

How many fertility clinics are being demonstrated in front of? How many laws are being passed in the states limiting access to fertility clinics? That there may be some groups against it may be true, but it's not nearly at the same level as the anti-abortion crowd.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

How many fertility clinics are being demonstrated in front of? How many laws are being passed in the states limiting access to fertility clinics? That there may be some groups against it may be true, but it's not nearly at the same level as the anti-abortion crowd.

IIRC, in vitro fertilization was the abortion of the 1950s or 60s. There was a thing I saw once about preachers today railing against abortion using pretty much the exact same speeches that their fathers had used to protest artificial insemination back then.

After a while, however, more and more of their parishoners started having kids that way and the stance began to impact their pocket books, so they mostly forgot that they'd ever been against it.

 

[pegasus8]

Looks like the Polock should not have told Halle Barry's sister to, " heh you can use my sperm if you want!"

Poor Szafranski had second thoughts and got cold feet. Dude, Dustan wanted to originally have sperm from a donor bank so she would never know who the dad was. But hold on here comes the hero who is spanking her and like magic he gives her his sperm because she was convince to get sperm from someone she knew and cared about. So much for not knowing the father. But wait now our hero of men's reproductive rights does not want the eggs getting all jiggy with that. Yet they did both sign into an agreement that both would have to consent to put the sperm with the egg.

So the contract is valid or invalid? Well this dude is invalid. You do not break up with your girlfriend by text message. Hint # 1 is that this guy is a lop and a coward. Like Bronze Age said keep your sperm in the garage if you do not want it used. Hint # 2 do not give hot looking chicks who resemble Halle Barry your sperm. Oh yeh and hint # 3. Do not slam your ham and give the stuff to a MILF who is ten years older than you. Hint # 4 do not "dip your pen in the company ink well." Translation is that do not spank your co-workers. It makes work so much harder down there!

But they both signed a contract right? Oh yeh good one D.

Peace

Pegasus

 

[J842P]

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.

How many fertility clinics are being demonstrated in front of? How many laws are being passed in the states limiting access to fertility clinics? That there may be some groups against it may be true, but it's not nearly at the same level as the anti-abortion crowd.

Well...

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2...e-activists-now-protesting-fertility-clinics/

I'll grant that they don't get the same level of negative attention as abortion clinics, but so what? I'd bet that many pro-life groups are strongly against IVF for those same reasons. They have probably just decided that protesting abortion clinics is more politically expedient.

Almost every pro-life (anti-abortion) person I've met (a group that seems to be majority women where I live) is pro-life because of a sincere belief that a fertilized egg, at any stage of development, is morally equivalent to a breathing, adult person.

Interestingly, the Catholic church is against IVF in principle, not simply because of the discarding of unwanted embryos, but because the fertilization doesn't involve sex.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

This is a ludicrous state of affairs, although it may or may not be true depending on what you consider to be governing 'the rules'. It's certainly false biologically speaking; having impregnated a woman does not biologically compel a man to provide support, the law does 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.

So, you're saying a man does not have a right to his sperm, and to put conditions on its use?

If you donated $1,000 to a school on the proviso that it be used for a scholarship, and you put this in writing, and you and the school agree, and the school then uses it to repair the library roof, are you saying, "tought shit you are not entitled to your money back"?

It's as simple as that. Just as a man has no reproductive right,

Of course men have reproductive rights. They have the right not to be sterilised against their will, for example. But if we're going to play a game where you call that some other right, then the same applies to sperm: it's the property of the man that produced it.

 

[Metaphor]

Does the ruling in question imply that the man will be going through childbirth after ten months of pregnancy?

I think you know what the answer is - and it's not what it would have to be in order to be a mirror image of an unwanted pregnancy.

This scenario is not analogous to anything we commonly see, just with the genders reversed, as you seem to insinuate. The only thing it would be analogous to is a scenario where a man and a woman have banked fertilised eggs which they intended to be carried to term by a surrogate mother when the man becomes infertile, and the man wishing to go ahead with the surrogate mother and raise the child with his new wife. We don't know how the judge would have decided in that scenario, but chances are that whe would have made the same decision based on the same reasoning.

There are a lot of reasons to criticize the ruling - but "if we allow abortions, we have to allow this guy to stop this pregnancy too" isn't one of them. It's gibberish.

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.

If and when she does is the time to get outraged about that. So far, she hasn't, and I see no indication that she will.

No, the time to get outraged is already upon us. Surely you have the right not to be a father -- and that includes being a biological father against your will.

This man did not have unprotected sex, or even protected sex, with this woman that resulted in a pregnancy. They both took deliberative and expensive acts, for which they would have been well counselled and understood the implications, and they both agreed to the rules under which the sperm could be used. If a contract that is not unconscionable can be set aside by the law because the judge feels sorry for one of the contractors, all contracts are worthless.

And as for not suing for child support, the woman isn't the only person who can do that -- there's already precedent for the State to sue the biological father (a donor) when the sperm he donated to a lesbian couple resulted in a baby and the biological mother claimed welfare.

 

[Bronzeage]

This is a ludicrous state of affairs, although it may or may not be true depending on what you consider to be governing 'the rules'. It's certainly false biologically speaking; having impregnated a woman does not biologically compel a man to provide support, the law does 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.

So, you're saying a man does not have a right to his sperm, and to put conditions on its use?

If you donated $1,000 to a school on the proviso that it be used for a scholarship, and you put this in writing, and you and the school agree, and the school then uses it to repair the library roof, are you saying, "tought shit you are not entitled to your money back"?

It's as simple as that. Just as a man has no reproductive right,

Of course men have reproductive rights. They have the right not to be sterilised against their will, for example. But if we're going to play a game where you call that some other right, then the same applies to sperm: it's the property of the man that produced it.

It would be nice if sperm were like charitable donations and we could tie a string to each tiny little tail and yank them back if we saw them going in the wrong direction, wouldn't it?

A man has full rights to his sperm as long as they are in his possession. Once he hands them over to someone else, he has no more say in the matter. This is a great incentive to be very careful who we allow to have some sperm.

Everybody wants their rights and everybody has good reasons why their rights should be validated. A man wants rights, the woman wants rights. It's complicated when we try to determine whose rights take precedence. Actually, it just looks complicated. The real complication is when a third person shows up and they have a whole new set of rights which supersedes the man and the woman and all their rights put together.

It really sucks, but a baby is not a library roof, so yes, "tough shit, you are not entitled to have your sperm back."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Correct. The agreement was that they couldn't be used without the consent of both parties. There's nothing onerous about such an agreement, why shouldn't the court enforce it?

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.

Agreed. Does that mean that if a woman can only have kids by one man that he can be compelled to impregnate her???

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.

So a judge can simply take from people if it lowers net suffering? A judge can simply hand out Bill Gates' fortune because it would help people?

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.

Your logic above says that child support should be awarded.

 

[credoconsolans]

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.

I agree with this. Emotions should not weigh into whether a legal and binding contract should be honored or not.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

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.

I've just been reading about this. Frozen eggs have a really high failure rate, at every stage of fertilisation and foetal development, and in terms of problems for any subsequent babies. Frozen embryos coast through the process.

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.

I agreed with this until I read something below.

Poor Szafranski had second thoughts and got cold feet. Dude, Dustan wanted to originally have sperm from a donor bank so she would never know who the dad was. But hold on here comes the hero who is spanking her and like magic he gives her his sperm because she was convince to get sperm from someone she knew and cared about. So much for not knowing the father. But wait now our hero of men's reproductive rights does not want the eggs getting all jiggy with that. Yet they did both sign into an agreement that both would have to consent to put the sperm with the egg.

If she would have had access to fertilised eggs now, except for his persuading her to use his sperm instead of the donor system, that changes the situation.

He talked her out of the forward planning she had done to ensure she could still have children after chemo. Saying "No, use my sperm instead of what you were planning to do", because of the relationship they were in at the time, is the moral equivalent of getting her pregnant on the spot. Changing your mind after her loss of viable eggs renders the embryos you insisted on going halves in the only option for her, is a different scenario to if donor sperm had never been her plan.

Still, while medical records must remain intact, he should not be financially liable for any offspring. Nor should they ever know who their biological father is without his consent. [derec-style assumption].[Though I would bet money that he would eventually tell them himself, and likely without consulting their mother first.[/derec-style assumption]

Also, if the contract requiring both permissions was worded like the bolded bit, then he clearly gave such permission. They HAVE frozen embryos. These timing distinctions are as important to reproductive law as they are in the legal aspects of reproductive research.

As details emerge it becomes easier to see where the judge's decision comes from.

 

[Enigma]

Everybody wants their rights and everybody has good reasons why their rights should be validated. A man wants rights, the woman wants rights. It's complicated when we try to determine whose rights take precedence. Actually, it just looks complicated. The real complication is when a third person shows up and they have a whole new set of rights which supersedes the man and the woman and all their rights put together.

I take it you are anti-abortion then?

In any case, this reasoning doesn't apply in this situation because presumably it is sufficiently respectful of the fetuses rights to be kept on ice for the duration until either it gets implanted or, more likely, it gets discarded or lost due to storage failure.

Either it is acceptable to keep the fetus perpetually on ice or it isn't.

If it is acceptable, then the fetus is fine regardless of whether or not it gets implanted into the mother and so it comes back to mom wanting to make the contract that she signed retroactively null and void because she feels like it, which is probably something our court system shouldn't encourage.

If it isn't acceptable, then someone (presumably the mom) is obliged to ensure that all embryos that she has stored on ice get gestated. If the fetuses rights are truly so paramount, then it would only be reasonable for government to compel her to do so as soon as possible to avoid the potential denial of the rights of the unborn due to possible storage failure. I suspect that you would find this not to be an acceptable solution, but if the embryos' rights are truly paramount as you claim and keeping them on perpetual ice isn't acceptable, this is pretty much your only recourse.

 

[Bronzeage]

Everybody wants their rights and everybody has good reasons why their rights should be validated. A man wants rights, the woman wants rights. It's complicated when we try to determine whose rights take precedence. Actually, it just looks complicated. The real complication is when a third person shows up and they have a whole new set of rights which supersedes the man and the woman and all their rights put together.

I take it you are anti-abortion then?

In any case, this reasoning doesn't apply in this situation because presumably it is sufficiently respectful of the fetuses rights to be kept on ice for the duration until either it gets implanted or, more likely, it gets discarded or lost due to storage failure.

Either it is acceptable to keep the fetus perpetually on ice or it isn't.

If it is acceptable, then the fetus is fine regardless of whether or not it gets implanted into the mother and so it comes back to mom wanting to make the contract that she signed retroactively null and void because she feels like it, which is probably something our court system shouldn't encourage.

If it isn't acceptable, then someone (presumably the mom) is obliged to ensure that all embryos that she has stored on ice get gestated. If the fetuses rights are truly so paramount, then it would only be reasonable for government to compel her to do so as soon as possible to avoid the potential denial of the rights of the unborn due to possible storage failure. I suspect that you would find this not to be an acceptable solution, but if the embryos' rights are truly paramount as you claim and keeping them on perpetual ice isn't acceptable, this is pretty much your only recourse.

Nope, not anti-abortion. I've paid for too many. When I describe reality, I don't let personal feelings enter into it. My post is not a direct discussion of the merits of the legal case in the linked article. Whether or not the embryos are in an uterus or in a bottle doesn't really matter in the long view. If they were in her uterus, we'd all back up and say, "It's your choice, lady, at least for the next 3 months or so. After that, different standards apply." If I were the judge, I'd give them to the woman and let her make her choice.

The spermatozoa side of this recipe for bad precedence is out of the picture, no matter what. This man is just another guy who was careless with his sperm.

 

[Metaphor]

It would be nice if sperm were like charitable donations and we could tie a string to each tiny little tail and yank them back if we saw them going in the wrong direction, wouldn't it?

A man has full rights to his sperm as long as they are in his possession. Once he hands them over to someone else, he has no more say in the matter.

Why? You're saying this like it's a self-evident law of nature, when it clearly is not. Biology offers no protection whatever to a woman impregnated by a man who refuses to support her; the law does that. Are you saying he legally and morally ought to have no more say in the matter, even when he hands them over with a specific, mutually understood and agreed set of conditions, and, but for those conditions being agreed to, he would not have handed it over?

No: the man and woman made a contract, the contract was understood by all parties, it was not unconscionable, and there was clear evidence that the man did not want to become a father against his will, because he made that part of the contract.

It is a grave immoral injustice for the judge to set aside a contract because she felt sorry for one of the contractors.

This is a great incentive to be very careful who we allow to have some sperm.

If you mean it will have a chilling effect on charitable sperm donations, I'm sure you're right.

Everybody wants their rights and everybody has good reasons why their rights should be validated. A man wants rights, the woman wants rights. It's complicated when we try to determine whose rights take precedence.

In this case, it wasn't complicated at all. The woman had no right to the fertilised eggs without the father's permission. It couldn't be less complicated.

Actually, it just looks complicated. The real complication is when a third person shows up and they have a whole new set of rights which supersedes the man and the woman and all their rights put together.

It really sucks, but a baby is not a library roof, so yes, "tough shit, you are not entitled to have your sperm back."

There are no babies anywhere in this scenario. There are fertilised embryos. A fertilised embryo is not a person. It is property. In this case, it was the joint property of the man and a woman, and each needed 100% cooperation from all owners in order to do anything other than continue to store the embryos.

 

[Metaphor]

The spermatozoa side of this recipe for bad precedence is out of the picture, no matter what. This man is just another guy who was careless with his sperm.

It was, as it turns out, a mistake to rely on the law to enforce a contract. I wouldn't say it was bad judgment, exactly, since it is a moral fact that promises should not be broken on a whim, and a legal fact that contracts should not be set aside based on a whim.

It was careless to draw up a contract, and have all parties agree, and have the assurance that everyone was legally bound. He was careless in believing that the law would not arbitrarily toss aside agreements because the judge felt sorry for one of the contractors. Careless, careless, careless. It's a wonder he had the cognitive werewithall to even understand what sperm do.

 

[Enigma]

The spermatozoa side of this recipe for bad precedence is out of the picture, no matter what. This man is just another guy who was careless with his sperm.

It was, as it turns out, a mistake to rely on the law to enforce a contract. I wouldn't say it was bad judgment, exactly, since it is a moral fact that promises should not be broken on a whim, and a legal fact that contracts should not be set aside based on a whim.

It was careless to draw up a contract, and have all parties agree, and have the assurance that everyone was legally bound. He was careless in believing that the law would not arbitrarily toss aside agreements because the judge felt sorry for one of the contractors. Careless, careless, careless. It's a wonder he had the cognitive werewithall to even understand what sperm do.

Obviously the sensible thing for the storage facility to do now is to sell off all of the embryos to a lab for stem cell research. After all, it would likely make them money and likely the only thing stopping them from doing so is a contract that they signed with mom and dad. Given that contracts involving sperm have apparently been established to be null and void and they are, in fact, in possession of said embryos, that contract doesn't appear to be an issue.

I am expecting Bronzeage to have no objection to this course of action, although given that I have predicted wrong in the past I won't be placing any bets yet.

 

[Bronzeage]

Why? You're saying this like it's a self-evident law of nature, when it clearly is not. Biology offers no protection whatever to a woman impregnated by a man who refuses to support her; the law does that. Are you saying he legally and morally ought to have no more say in the matter, even when he hands them over with a specific, mutually understood and agreed set of conditions, and, but for those conditions being agreed to, he would not have handed it over?

No: the man and woman made a contract, the contract was understood by all parties, it was not unconscionable, and there was clear evidence that the man did not want to become a father against his will, because he made that part of the contract.

It is a grave immoral injustice for the judge to set aside a contract because she felt sorry for one of the contractors.

This is a great incentive to be very careful who we allow to have some sperm.

If you mean it will have a chilling effect on charitable sperm donations, I'm sure you're right.

Everybody wants their rights and everybody has good reasons why their rights should be validated. A man wants rights, the woman wants rights. It's complicated when we try to determine whose rights take precedence.

In this case, it wasn't complicated at all. The woman had no right to the fertilised eggs without the father's permission. It couldn't be less complicated.

Actually, it just looks complicated. The real complication is when a third person shows up and they have a whole new set of rights which supersedes the man and the woman and all their rights put together.

It really sucks, but a baby is not a library roof, so yes, "tough shit, you are not entitled to have your sperm back."

There are no babies anywhere in this scenario. There are fertilised embryos. A fertilised embryo is not a person. It is property. In this case, it was the joint property of the man and a woman, and each needed 100% cooperation from all owners in order to do anything other than continue to store the embryos.

I'm not claiming anything is a self evident natural law. I am describing the reality of the situation. People say a lot of things and they sign a lot of contracts.

You say the woman has no right to the fertilized eggs without the father's permission and then say it's not complicated. Okay. If the embryo was in her belly, he has no say. Have we ever allowed a man to force a woman to abort because he did not want children? Haven't seen it done yet.

I fall back on my original observation. He let go of his sperm. He is no longer in control of them and what happens now is his fortune, good or bad.

 

[Toni]

The spermatozoa side of this recipe for bad precedence is out of the picture, no matter what. This man is just another guy who was careless with his sperm.

It was, as it turns out, a mistake to rely on the law to enforce a contract. I wouldn't say it was bad judgment, exactly, since it is a moral fact that promises should not be broken on a whim, and a legal fact that contracts should not be set aside based on a whim.

It was careless to draw up a contract, and have all parties agree, and have the assurance that everyone was legally bound. He was careless in believing that the law would not arbitrarily toss aside agreements because the judge felt sorry for one of the contractors. Careless, careless, careless. It's a wonder he had the cognitive werewithall to even understand what sperm do.

In this particular case, the circumstances have changed. The woman's options to bear a child are limited to only the frozen embryos. She has ZERO opportunities to procreate without the embryos. The man presumably has all the same options he has had before. But suppose the circumstances were reversed: suppose he were suddenly unable to have more biological children and the woman was reluctant to release the embryos. I would argue that in both cases, the individual who wished to be a parent should have the opportunity if he or she agreed, with all legal stipulations, etc. that the other would not be a 'parent' in any way and the resulting offspring would have no claim, legal, moral, financial, emotional on the individual who did not wish to become a parent.

If there were compelling reason that the one who wished to become a parent should not become a parent: history of abusing children, for example: then of course the other individual would have every right and reason to refuse to allow the use of the embryos.


Further, both the man and the woman have reached an agreement that she can use the embryos but the hospital refuses to honor the conditions. I find the man's conditions to be rather bizarre. I would completely understand if he wished to have an agreement that he would be completely absolved of any legal, moral or financial obligation to any resulting offspring: he would be no more than a sperm donor, albeit one which was known to the mother of the offspring. But insisting that he be erased seems bizarre and under the circumstances, mean spirited.

I understand that the hospital may feel it is in the best interests of the child to know the identity of the father, particularly any medical information, but that can be accomplished without him being 'erased,' as it were. Aside from that, I can think of no interest the hospital might have in refusing the request of both biological parents. I agree that the real case should be against the hospital as the man and the woman agree that the embryos can be used under conditions to which they both agree.

It's more complicated in that the embryos did not result from a one night stand or a casual relationship. They were created in anticipation of being implanted and becoming the children of these two individuals. That also should be a factor.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm not claiming anything is a self evident natural law. I am describing the reality of the situation. People say a lot of things and they sign a lot of contracts.

So, because contracts are common, it's okay to set them aside? What on earth are you saying here?

You say the woman has no right to the fertilized eggs without the father's permission

That is 100% correct. I do say that and that is in fact the moral reality of the situation (though evidently not the legal reality). They each donated to a project (an embryo) and they are the joint owners of that embryo. They decided, ahead of time, how that embryo could be used. They decided, in enough detail to specify it in the contract, that the embryo could not be implanted without both parent's consent. This is not a difficult thing to understand.

and then say it's not complicated. Okay. If the embryo was in her belly, he has no say.

The embryo is not in her belly (or, more fruitfully, her uterus). Further, it would be immoral for the judge to allow her to put that embryo in her womb. That embryo is not her property; it is joint property.

Have we ever allowed a man to force a woman to abort because he did not want children? Haven't seen it done yet.

Oh, I see. You've profoundly misunderstood the case. You think she is already gestating the embryo. You think that it belongs to her, even though it doesn't. You think there is a baby, even though there isn't. You think contracts can be set aside on whims, even though that's moral poison.

I fall back on my original observation. He let go of his sperm. He is no longer in control of them and what happens now is his fortune, good or bad.

Thank goodness saner minds prevail (although evidently are less often prevailing, given this ruling).