No reproductive rights for men

[Metaphor]

In this particular case, the circumstances have changed.

Yes they have, but that does not mean judges should set aside contracts.

The woman's options to bear a child are limited to only the frozen embryos.

That can't be right -- if she can bear a child from the frozen embryos, then she can bear a child with a donated egg and sperm. You mean: her only option for bearing her own biological child is from the frozen embryo. Well yes, that's true.

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.

Why do you believe that? Surely I have a right not to reproduce? In essence, you're saying that we can and should force people to reproduce, if we feel sorry enough for someone who can't bear their own biological children.

I don't find forced reproduction a moral position.

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.

Surely the fact that someone does not want to be forced to be a biological parent is a compelling reason to not force them to be a biological parent?

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.

So, men can be forced to be sperm donors against their will? Why do you find that a morally righteous position? You ought to find it morally repugnant.

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.

I don't know the details of the contract with the hospital nor what the legal obligations of the hospital are, so I don't think it's fruitful for me to discuss them.

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.

You're correct: they had a clear and consented to set of conditions under which the embryos were to be implanted. The conditions were not met (consent from both parents).

- - - Updated - - -

In this particular case, the circumstances have changed.

Yes they have, but that does not mean judges should set aside contracts.

The woman's options to bear a child are limited to only the frozen embryos.

That can't be right -- if she can bear a child from the frozen embryos, then she can bear a child with a donated egg and sperm. You mean: her only option for bearing her own biological child is from the frozen embryo. Well yes, that's true.

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.

Why do you believe that? Surely I have a right not to reproduce? In essence, you're saying that we can and should force people to reproduce, if we feel sorry enough for someone who can't bear their own biological children.

I don't find forced reproduction a moral position.

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.

Surely the fact that someone does not want to be forced to be a biological parent is a compelling reason to not force them to be a biological parent?

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.

So, men can be forced to be sperm donors against their will? Why do you find that a morally righteous position? You ought to find it morally repugnant.

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.

I don't know the details of the contract with the hospital nor what the legal obligations of the hospital are, so I don't think it's fruitful for me to discuss them.

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.

You're correct: they had a clear and consented to set of conditions under which the embryos were to be implanted. The conditions were not met (consent from both parents).

 

[Bronzeage]

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).

If you are going to depend upon mind reading to determine what I think, we should move this to pseudoscience.

I'm not saying it's okay to lay aside a contract. I'm saying it happens. That is reality. Harping on the fact of the contract doesn't help when someone enters into an unwise contract. He took her at her word and now she retracts her word. This is why we have courts and even then, it's not always clear. We have fertilized embryos, a thing which for millennium have existed only inside the body of a woman. In our enlightened times, such embryos are considered hers, and within limits, she controls their fate. The man who fertilizes embryos in the traditional manner does not have such control. Fast forward to right now. Why does she lose this control because the presumed father objects to their existence? Why does he suddenly get a power no man has ever been granted?

I don't think she is gestating an embryo. As far as I know, they are still frozen. You say they don't belong to her because they aren't inside her uterus. Now we need King Solomon to cut the embryos in half and settle the issue, once and for all.

 

[bigfield]

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.

The critical difference is that when an embryo is in a woman's uterus, legally preventing her from allowing it to grow into a baby is an infringement on her bodily antonomy. There is no such problem when the embryo is in stasis outside of her body.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Does providing sperm necessarily mean that one will be a "father"? It only means that they will be the biological father, but that's no guarantee that they will have to interact with the children in any way.

 

[Toni]

Yes they have, but that does not mean judges should set aside contracts.

But in fact, both parties have agreed to have the embryos implanted, as the contract stipulated. The bio father now wishes to make his consent conditional--his identity will be 'erased.' The woman agreed. So they are in agreement. The change in circumstance is that the hospital does not wish to proceed under those restrictions.

He agreed to create the embryos, as did she. They both agreed that they embryos would be implanted only if they both agreed. They both did agree but the man withdrew his consent because the hospital would not agree to destroy his records. This was a particularly bizarre request by the man who had worked as a nurse and would be aware that a hospital will not destroy medical records.

Please note: were the genders reversed, I would feel the same, with the exception that I don't believe that either party should be forced to carry a pregnancy.

I also think that it matters that when he agreed to donate sperm, he knew as did she that this creation of pre-embryos was her only chance at ever having biological children. She had the option of using donor sperm which in retrospect, would have been much wiser. However, he was not medically naive: he worked as a nurse. He knew that immediately after harvesting eggs, she would undergo chemotherapy which would make any further attempts at biological reproduction impossible.

The woman's options to bear a child are limited to only the frozen embryos.

That can't be right -- if she can bear a child from the frozen embryos, then she can bear a child with a donated egg and sperm. You mean: her only option for bearing her own biological child is from the frozen embryo. Well yes, that's true.

It is true from a biological standpoint: without those embryos, she cannot have biological children. Actually, she has given birth to a child from donated egg and sperm.

Why do you believe that? Surely I have a right not to reproduce? In essence, you're saying that we can and should force people to reproduce, if we feel sorry enough for someone who can't bear their own biological children.

I don't find forced reproduction a moral position.

No I am not saying that if we feel sorry for someone, their prize should be biological children. In this case, both parties willingly contributed the means necessary for the creation of the embryos with the express purpose of those embryos being implanted and carried to term. The relationship failed; the parties agreed to implantation if and only if both agreed, which they do, under circumstances both are willing to honor.

I don't see how this is forcing anyone to reproduce against his or her will. He's already done everything required, with full consent.

Reading the OP link, it appears his objection is that in a future relationship, his future love might object to him having a child with a woman he does not love:

But he later changed his mind and said that he would give Dunston control of the embryos if the child could never be traced back to him - but when he asked the hospital to destroy his records, they refused.
He eventually concluded that the child would be traced back to him and that he did not want children at all, at any point.
In June 2010, he wrote in an email that he worried he would find someone he was ready to have a family with - but that they would reject him based on the fact he had a child he did not know with a women he did not love.

Yes, I understand now: no hospital will destroy records. He surely knew that since he worked as a nurse. Furthermore, more than one agreement was drawn up, including one which gave the woman full control of the embryos. However neither signed that document.

Another piece of this is that at the time she was diagnosed, she wished to freeze embryos and had the option of using donor sperm at that time. He said he would donate sperm. They both were aware that this represented her ONLY opportunity to have biological children. They had discussed using donor sperm; he agreed to donate sperm instead of her using an anonymous donor.

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.

Surely the fact that someone does not want to be forced to be a biological parent is a compelling reason to not force them to be a biological parent?

But he agreed to become the biological parent when he contributed his sperm and further agreed to the implantation if she agreed to his condition. She did so agree. It does not seem to be a fact that he does not wish to become a biological parent. In fact, his reasoning seems to be that some future relationship might object if they ever found out about the bio child from donated sperm.

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.

So, men can be forced to be sperm donors against their will? Why do you find that a morally righteous position? You ought to find it morally repugnant.

There is no evidence that he contributed his sperm against his will. He was a willing donor.

It is not a fact that he absolutely does not wish to become a biological father. He has agreed to do so, in the past when the embryos were created and more recently.

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.

I don't know the details of the contract with the hospital nor what the legal obligations of the hospital are, so I don't think it's fruitful for me to discuss them.

True. It's just bizarre, to me. I feel like some vital bits of information are missing from the reasoning of the hospital and the man.

ETA: The hospital refused to destroy the man's records. This is reasonable on the part of the hospital. The man worked as a nurse and surely knew that hospitals do not destroy medical records and in fact, are prohibited from doing so. Which he realized and then decided he was withdrawing consent for the use of the embryos.

So which counted: when he consented? Or when he changed his mind because in the future it might be inconvenient for him or cause him embarrassment in a future relationship?

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.

You're correct: they had a clear and consented to set of conditions under which the embryos were to be implanted. The conditions were not met (consent from both parents).

Not true. Both consented and then he changed his mind.

 

[Toni]

I should have done this in the first place: I googled the case and found the court briefs:

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2013/1stDistrict/1122975.pdf

 

[Underseer]

"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.

Had you been a German during the middle part of the 20^th century, no doubt you would have been among those complaining about how the Jews were persecuting and oppressing Germans. If you were born in a Muslim-majority country, no doubt right now you would be complaining bitterly about how the religious minorities in your country are persecuting and oppressing Muslims.

[sarcasm] You are soooooo oppressed! Someone should pass a UN resolution to protect you and your rights! [/sarcasm]

 

[Bronzeage]

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.

The critical difference is that when an embryo is in a woman's uterus, legally preventing her from allowing it to grow into a baby is an infringement on her bodily antonomy. There is no such problem when the embryo is in stasis outside of her body.

You have identified the point of contention. Why should a fertilized embryo be treated differently? Is there a better reason than "just because."

 

[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

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.

An attack on "the rule of law"? Give me a break. There is a good reason judges are permitted latitude. IMO, it is a fair decision, especially if the donor records are sealed.

 

[bigfield]

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.

The critical difference is that when an embryo is in a woman's uterus, legally preventing her from allowing it to grow into a baby is an infringement on her bodily antonomy. There is no such problem when the embryo is in stasis outside of her body.

You have identified the point of contention. Why should a fertilized embryo be treated differently? Is there a better reason than "just because."

The fact that it is not inside her means that it should be treated differently. Nobody is forcing this woman to do anything to her body.

There is also nothing stopping the woman from having an embryo implanted in her body; the problem is that the contract prevented her from using fertilised embryos containing her DNA.

 

[Metaphor]

If you are going to depend upon mind reading to determine what I think, we should move this to pseudoscience.

There is no mind reading. These are the consequences of your stated positions.

I'm not saying it's okay to lay aside a contract. I'm saying it happens. That is reality. Harping on the fact of the contract doesn't help when someone enters into an unwise contract.

No-one entered an unwise contract. Two people entered a contract and one of them wants to back out. Actually, worse: someone wants to take the fruits of the contract and keep them for herself.

He took her at her word and now she retracts her word.

No: that's why we have contracts. So you don't have to take someone's words. It's so that, if someone wants to renege on a promise, the law can force them not to renege, or if the reneging is done and dusted, to compensate the trespassed party.

The problem is not that she retracted her word. The problem is that the law, ludicrously, allowed her to.

This is why we have courts and even then, it's not always clear. We have fertilized embryos, a thing which for millennium have existed only inside the body of a woman. In our enlightened times, such embryos are considered hers,

A frozen embryo does not belong to the biological mother solely any more than it belongs to the biological father solely, but to both jointly, unless there was a clear and consented to change to that arrangement. Since the embryos were formed on the basis that each parent was a joint owner, there's no ambiguity. The embryos are not hers to do with as she pleases.

and within limits, she controls their fate. The man who fertilizes embryos in the traditional manner does not have such control. Fast forward to right now. Why does she lose this control because the presumed father objects to their existence? Why does he suddenly get a power no man has ever been granted?

She does not lose control. She never had control. Nothing about this situation implies she had control, legally or morally.

The frozen embryos are joint property. Nothing could be clearer. Each parent was necessary for the creation of the embryo. There was no act, implicit or explicit, where the father gave up his rights as the joint property owner (like would have happened had he deposited sperm inside her vagina, knowing it would then be inside her body and indivisibly give her controlling interest). In fact, the only actions taken by the father imply he never wanted to cede control of his joint property.

I don't think she is gestating an embryo. As far as I know, they are still frozen. You say they don't belong to her because they aren't inside her uterus. Now we need King Solomon to cut the embryos in half and settle the issue, once and for all.

That is correct: they are inside a freezer, not her uterus. She has no greater moral right to control them than the father. Their contract makes it crystal clear she could not implant them in her uterus without the father's explicit consent.

Your argument amounts to nothing more than 'people sometimes go back on their word, so it's okay to go back on your word'. People sometimes murder other people, so it's okay to murder other people, right? Your argument is absurd.

 

[Metaphor]

But in fact, both parties have agreed to have the embryos implanted, as the contract stipulated. The bio father now wishes to make his consent conditional--his identity will be 'erased.' The woman agreed. So they are in agreement. The change in circumstance is that the hospital does not wish to proceed under those restrictions.

He agreed to create the embryos, as did she. They both agreed that they embryos would be implanted only if they both agreed. They both did agree but the man withdrew his consent because the hospital would not agree to destroy his records. This was a particularly bizarre request by the man who had worked as a nurse and would be aware that a hospital will not destroy medical records.

It does not matter that his request was, in your eyes, 'bizarre'. He agreed to let her implant the embryos if the hospital destroyed the identifying information. The hospital refused. That's that. There's nothing more to be said.

But let's make an analogy: you have the right to kiss someone, fondle and agree to be fondled, lead them to bed, and then, at the last second, say 'I don't want to have sex.' You always have the right to withdraw your consent at any point in the process.

His chance to withdraw consent could only be stopped had he given her permission to implant and she had already done so. That's the point of no return.
Please note: were the genders reversed, I would feel the same, with the exception that I don't believe that either party should be forced to carry a pregnancy.

I also think that it matters that when he agreed to donate sperm, he knew as did she that this creation of pre-embryos was her only chance at ever having biological children. She had the option of using donor sperm which in retrospect, would have been much wiser. However, he was not medically naive: he worked as a nurse. He knew that immediately after harvesting eggs, she would undergo chemotherapy which would make any further attempts at biological reproduction impossible.

I assume they both knew that, which was the point of the whole exercise in the first place. But why is it relevant? He must have known that he might not want to go through with it -- that's why the contract stated they both had to agree.

No I am not saying that if we feel sorry for someone, their prize should be biological children. In this case, both parties willingly contributed the means necessary for the creation of the embryos with the express purpose of those embryos being implanted and carried to term. The relationship failed; the parties agreed to implantation if and only if both agreed, which they do, under circumstances both are willing to honor.

He has agreed to implantation if the hospital destroys paternity records. That's his condition. If the hospital can't or won't, that doesn't change the facts that his consent was conditional.

I don't see how this is forcing anyone to reproduce against his or her will. He's already done everything required, with full consent.

If the woman is allowed to use the embryos without the paternity information being destroyed, then he is being forced to reproduce against his will.

Yes, I understand now: no hospital will destroy records. He surely knew that since he worked as a nurse. Furthermore, more than one agreement was drawn up, including one which gave the woman full control of the embryos. However neither signed that document.

And since neither party is claiming that's the 'real' agreement, it's irrelevant.

Another piece of this is that at the time she was diagnosed, she wished to freeze embryos and had the option of using donor sperm at that time. He said he would donate sperm. They both were aware that this represented her ONLY opportunity to have biological children. They had discussed using donor sperm; he agreed to donate sperm instead of her using an anonymous donor.

And she agreed to it.

But he agreed to become the biological parent when he contributed his sperm and further agreed to the implantation if she agreed to his condition. She did so agree. It does not seem to be a fact that he does not wish to become a biological parent. In fact, his reasoning seems to be that some future relationship might object if they ever found out about the bio child from donated sperm.

No: he consented to becoming a biological parent if the paternity information was destroyed. If the hospital can't or won't do that, that does not mean that he consented to becoming a biological parent with the exact opposite conditions.

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.

What does your evaluation of his behaviour as 'bizarre' have to do with the agreement between the affected parties?

There is no evidence that he contributed his sperm against his will. He was a willing donor.

I used the wrong term. Men can be forced to be fathers against their will.

It is not a fact that he absolutely does not wish to become a biological father. He has agreed to do so, in the past when the embryos were created and more recently.

It is an absolute fact that he does not wish to be the biological father to a child with this woman, with the embryos they created, unless certain conditions are met. The fact that he'd be okay with being a father under other conditions that do not exist are irrelevant

ETA: The hospital refused to destroy the man's records. This is reasonable on the part of the hospital. The man worked as a nurse and surely knew that hospitals do not destroy medical records and in fact, are prohibited from doing so. Which he realized and then decided he was withdrawing consent for the use of the embryos.

He made use of the embryos conditional on a set of circumstances. The set of circumstances can't or won't happen. It's irrelevant whether he knew that. He had the right to withdraw consent for any reason or no reason at all.

So which counted: when he consented? Or when he changed his mind because in the future it might be inconvenient for him or cause him embarrassment in a future relationship?

Obviously, his changed mind counts. How could it not. The very fact that the contract says 'only if both parents agree' is crystal clear proof that he might change his mind and not consent.

Do you think you can change your mind about having sex? I do.

Not true. Both consented and then he changed his mind.

Yes, he changed his mind. He's allowed to change his mind. That was the whole point of the contract. At the time they made it, he must have envisioned the possibility of him changing his mind, because he wrote that into the contract: that at the time of implantation they would both need to consent.

If he was giving up the chance to change his mind, he would have signed a contract that said 'I cede all property rights to the embryo and nothing can restore them'.

 

[Juma]

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.

No, that just an old chauvinistic cliche.

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.

There was a contract.

 

[Toni]

It does not matter that his request was, in your eyes, 'bizarre'. He agreed to let her implant the embryos if the hospital destroyed the identifying information. The hospital refused. That's that. There's nothing more to be said.

But let's make an analogy: you have the right to kiss someone, fondle and agree to be fondled, lead them to bed, and then, at the last second, say 'I don't want to have sex.' You always have the right to withdraw your consent at any point in the process.

His chance to withdraw consent could only be stopped had he given her permission to implant and she had already done so. That's the point of no return.
Please note: were the genders reversed, I would feel the same, with the exception that I don't believe that either party should be forced to carry a pregnancy.

I also think that it matters that when he agreed to donate sperm, he knew as did she that this creation of pre-embryos was her only chance at ever having biological children. She had the option of using donor sperm which in retrospect, would have been much wiser. However, he was not medically naive: he worked as a nurse. He knew that immediately after harvesting eggs, she would undergo chemotherapy which would make any further attempts at biological reproduction impossible.

I assume they both knew that, which was the point of the whole exercise in the first place. But why is it relevant? He must have known that he might not want to go through with it -- that's why the contract stated they both had to agree.

No I am not saying that if we feel sorry for someone, their prize should be biological children. In this case, both parties willingly contributed the means necessary for the creation of the embryos with the express purpose of those embryos being implanted and carried to term. The relationship failed; the parties agreed to implantation if and only if both agreed, which they do, under circumstances both are willing to honor.

He has agreed to implantation if the hospital destroys paternity records. That's his condition. If the hospital can't or won't, that doesn't change the facts that his consent was conditional.

I don't see how this is forcing anyone to reproduce against his or her will. He's already done everything required, with full consent.

If the woman is allowed to use the embryos without the paternity information being destroyed, then he is being forced to reproduce against his will.

Yes, I understand now: no hospital will destroy records. He surely knew that since he worked as a nurse. Furthermore, more than one agreement was drawn up, including one which gave the woman full control of the embryos. However neither signed that document.

And since neither party is claiming that's the 'real' agreement, it's irrelevant.

Another piece of this is that at the time she was diagnosed, she wished to freeze embryos and had the option of using donor sperm at that time. He said he would donate sperm. They both were aware that this represented her ONLY opportunity to have biological children. They had discussed using donor sperm; he agreed to donate sperm instead of her using an anonymous donor.

And she agreed to it.

But he agreed to become the biological parent when he contributed his sperm and further agreed to the implantation if she agreed to his condition. She did so agree. It does not seem to be a fact that he does not wish to become a biological parent. In fact, his reasoning seems to be that some future relationship might object if they ever found out about the bio child from donated sperm.

No: he consented to becoming a biological parent if the paternity information was destroyed. If the hospital can't or won't do that, that does not mean that he consented to becoming a biological parent with the exact opposite conditions.

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.

What does your evaluation of his behaviour as 'bizarre' have to do with the agreement between the affected parties?

There is no evidence that he contributed his sperm against his will. He was a willing donor.

I used the wrong term. Men can be forced to be fathers against their will.

It is not a fact that he absolutely does not wish to become a biological father. He has agreed to do so, in the past when the embryos were created and more recently.

It is an absolute fact that he does not wish to be the biological father to a child with this woman, with the embryos they created, unless certain conditions are met. The fact that he'd be okay with being a father under other conditions that do not exist are irrelevant

ETA: The hospital refused to destroy the man's records. This is reasonable on the part of the hospital. The man worked as a nurse and surely knew that hospitals do not destroy medical records and in fact, are prohibited from doing so. Which he realized and then decided he was withdrawing consent for the use of the embryos.

He made use of the embryos conditional on a set of circumstances. The set of circumstances can't or won't happen. It's irrelevant whether he knew that. He had the right to withdraw consent for any reason or no reason at all.

So which counted: when he consented? Or when he changed his mind because in the future it might be inconvenient for him or cause him embarrassment in a future relationship?

Obviously, his changed mind counts. How could it not. The very fact that the contract says 'only if both parents agree' is crystal clear proof that he might change his mind and not consent.

Do you think you can change your mind about having sex? I do.

Not true. Both consented and then he changed his mind.

Yes, he changed his mind. He's allowed to change his mind. That was the whole point of the contract. At the time they made it, he must have envisioned the possibility of him changing his mind, because he wrote that into the contract: that at the time of implantation they would both need to consent.

If he was giving up the chance to change his mind, he would have signed a contract that said 'I cede all property rights to the embryo and nothing can restore them'.

He can relinquish his parental rights and make it a condition of agreeing (as he has done in the past, multiple times). No one can be forced to parent.

Sorry: no time to go point by point: He changed his mind a second time.

There was more than one contract. Read the link to the case.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

He can relinquish his parental rights and make it a condition of agreeing (as he has done in the past, multiple times). No one can be forced to parent.

Sorry: no time to go point by point: He changed his mind a second time.

There was more than one contract. Read the link to the case.

There was never a second contract. Read the link to the case. One was drawn up but it wasn't signed because he didn't trust that the child would never be traced back to him. He was willing to grant his consent based on that stipulation, but it couldn't be guaranteed to his satisfaction so he never agreed to any alterations of the terms of the contract.

 

[laughing dog]

He can relinquish his parental rights and make it a condition of agreeing (as he has done in the past, multiple times). No one can be forced to parent.

Sorry: no time to go point by point: He changed his mind a second time.

There was more than one contract. Read the link to the case.

There was never a second contract. Read the link to the case. One was drawn up but it wasn't signed because he didn't trust that the child would never be traced back to him. He was willing to grant his consent based on that stipulation, but it couldn't be guaranteed to his satisfaction so he never agreed to any alterations of the terms of the contract.

I find his reasoning curious. First, it is not possible that the child could not NEVER be traced back to him. Second, in this day and age, I thought one's medical records are pretty much effectively sealed to anyone who does not have explicit permission to look at them.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

He can relinquish his parental rights and make it a condition of agreeing (as he has done in the past, multiple times). No one can be forced to parent.

Sorry: no time to go point by point: He changed his mind a second time.

There was more than one contract. Read the link to the case.

There was never a second contract. Read the link to the case. One was drawn up but it wasn't signed because he didn't trust that the child would never be traced back to him. He was willing to grant his consent based on that stipulation, but it couldn't be guaranteed to his satisfaction so he never agreed to any alterations of the terms of the contract.

I find his reasoning curious. First, it is not possible that the child could not NEVER be traced back to him. Second, in this day and age, I thought one's medical records are pretty much effectively sealed to anyone who does not have explicit permission to look at them.

so he offered a "compromise" and then issued conditions on that compromise he decided could not be satisfied.

I smell a rat.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

There was never a second contract. Read the link to the case. One was drawn up but it wasn't signed because he didn't trust that the child would never be traced back to him. He was willing to grant his consent based on that stipulation, but it couldn't be guaranteed to his satisfaction so he never agreed to any alterations of the terms of the contract.

I find his reasoning curious. First, it is not possible that the child could not NEVER be traced back to him. Second, in this day and age, I thought one's medical records are pretty much effectively sealed to anyone who does not have explicit permission to look at them.

But there's still the mother to tell the child who the father is. The one thing we know about her is that she has no problem ignoring previous agreements when they become inconvenient to her, so she can't be trusted to keep his identity a secret. There's also the possibility of a judge like the one in this case deciding to ignore the law and rule that the child can have access to his father's identity.

Now, those may be legitimate risks or they may not be. The point is that he was worried about them or something like them and didn't want to give his consent as a result of them. The contract didn't specify any standard of rationale for the consent, but just that consent was required, so it doesn't matter how good or bad his reasoning was. If he'd had a dream that the child would become the Anti-Christ and figures he's saving the world by not giving consent or if he's withholding consent for the sole purpose of annoying his ex-girlfriend, those are both fine and neither would invalidate the contract.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

so he offered a "compromise" and then issued conditions on that compromise he decided could not be satisfied.

I smell a rat.

Who cares? Even if he had no intention of renegotiating the contract and was only pretending to consider it in order to not look like so much of a dick, it doesn't change the fact that they had a legitimate contract and his consent was required to either alter the contract or let her implant the embryo.

 

[fromderinside]

BTW the guy in OP case is a son-of-a-bitch.)

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.

Prick!

Yes, I wrote that. The judge would be a prick.