The two positions are not analogues, they're
identical.
It is apparent that becoming a parent was something that was very important to her.
She's already a parent.
She was faced with a serious diagnosis and undertook great measures-physical, financial, and emotional-to ensure that she would be able to become a mother to her own child later. This also provided her with the most likely avenue to parenthood, period. Adoption is difficult and there is no guarantee she would ever receive a child, particularly with her medical history. It is a bit surprising to me that she was able to have a pregnancy via donated egg/sperm. That's still fairly uncommon. She was very lucky.
Yes, she did do all those things. She also signed a contract in the full knowledge that she might never be able to access her joint property and she went ahead and signed it.
On the other hand, he probably never really thought much about becoming a father. He wasn't in the same situation: he wasn't about to lose his fertility and would have many other opportunities to have biological children if he wanted. However much he did or did not want to have a biological child with this woman, he agreed to do so
No, he didn't. He agreed to make embryos with her and part of that agreement was that they would only be implanted if they both agreed.
and did it in such a way that precluded any possibility of her ever having another bio child. That is a particularly shitty thing to do unless there was a sincere commitment to allow implantation of the embryos. It doesn't seem that there was such a commitment or intent. In essence, he lied about an essential condition of the contract--his intent to allow implantation, which would make the contract void.
So now you are claiming you can read his mind, and you know he entered into a contract with his then girlfriend with full knowledge that he had the intention of
ruining her life?
Which brings up a question: How does he *know* that he does not already have a biological child out there somewhere? What is so special about these embryos? That particular sperm?
Who cares? Completely irrelevant. He could have fathered a million bastards and that would still be no excuse to violate his privacy, property, and reproductive rights.
So, only he has the right to determine what happens to the embryos? His assertion of his right is denying her her right to procreate.
No, they have the joint right. They decided ahead of time that implantation of the embryos required 100% cooperation from both owners. For example, if he wanted to use the embryos with a surrogate, she could also either allow it or deny it.
Yes, he did contradict himself. He agreed to it (in theory) when he provided sperm and signed the contract.
No, he didn't! The only thing he agreed to was that he could deny implantation!! It's in the contract!!!
He decided to prevent it when he decided he didn't want to have children. THEN he contradicted himself to say that he would agree
Changing your mind is not contradicting yourself.
Changing your mind after relentless badgering is also not contradicting yourself.
provided a condition which could not be met. He clearly does not object to having a biological child with this woman, only with having the biological tie known. A ship that has now sailed.
He objects to having a biological child with this woman where paternity is known. You said it. Remember, the contract gave him the right to refuse implantation for any reason or no reason at all, did it not?
That is exactly what he is doing now: trying to prevent her from having her own biological children.
No, he's doing no such thing. He is demanding his property, privacy, and reproductive rights not be razed so that this woman can have biological children. It's unfortunate for her that the only way for her to have biological children is to trample his property, privacy, and reproductive rights. Or maybe not unfortunate, since she's going ahead and doing it anyway.
He is quite willing to do that on an inconsistent whim and under an impossible condition that could easily be met by drafting and signing legal documents shielding him and relinquishing his parental rights and responsibilities.
Gracious fucking goodness, Toni, have you ever changed your mind? To whom are you beholden for permission in changing your mind?
Drafting and signing legal documents? What a breathtaking proposition!!!! Did drafting and signing a legal document work for him before??! You know, the legal document that was drafted and signed and
then overturned? Your advice is gobsmackingly, absurdly, eye-bleedingly, viciously stupid. It's the quintessence of irony.
The State has already shown it is willing to overturn a contract based on the judge's whim in the very case we're talking about. The State has also shown that it is willing to sue the biological parent, no matter what the agreement was between the biological parent and social parents.
Instead, he insists on an impossibility. This is again dishonest.
He has the right to refuse for any reason or no reason at all. The fact that he was badgered into agreeing and then adding a condition does not mean he loses that right.
It is not clear that the embryos are property, under the law
Did the contract, or did it not, stipulate that either party could prevent implantation?
By donating his sperm, he eliminated her opportunity to use the sperm of an anonymous donor.
Madam, he did not. She had the opportunity. She could have chucked his sperm into a bin. She could have extracted more eggs and fertilised those. He eliminated nothing. He presented a choice and she chose it.
This is absolutely clear: she was under a tight timeline as she had to begin chemo. Harvesting eggs requires time and planning and only a few at each attempt can be harvested. There was one and only one shot at harvesting eggs to create embryos.
Then she ought to have insisted that she would have sole property rights to the embryo. If he refused, she should have used a donor's sperm.
Her choice was to use his sperm OR use a donor's sperm. Making one choice precluded the possibility of EVER making the other choice. Her eggs were not unlimited and the time frame was short. There was no opportunity to have a second go and use donor sperm for fertilizing a second set of eggs.
Two words to highlight above. Her choice.
Her account is that he insisted. His account is that he did it as a favor but really didn't mean it
.
Did he hold a gun to her head? What does it mean for him to have 'insisted'?
He deceived her in his intentions. Aside from any moral and ethical issues, that would nullify the contract.
You've got no proof he did any such thing.
In exercising his rights, he is trampling hers.
No. She has no rights to be trampled. She has no right to have her own biological children if engaging in that right would trample on the property, privacy, and reproductive rights of another. Her right to have a biological child ends when she has to force another to have a biological child too.
Surely her rights are as important. A contract that is not entered into freely and with good faith is unconscionable. And likely invalid.
You've no evidence it was not entered into in good faith. You've got no evidence it was not entered into freely.
He worked as a nurse. As such, he would be well acquainted with the legal and ethical issues in maintaining accurate and complete medical records. Laws governing the maintenance and storage of medical records are not ambiguous but are clearly spelled out and are governed by state and federal law in addition to rules and regulations of multiple regulatory agencies.
So what? SO FUCKING WHAT? What if he had said 'you can have the eggs when Jesus returns'. He had the right to refuse for any reason or no reason at all.
It sounds to me as though he was willing to make a quick, easy donation but did not really consider that the embryos would be used. It certainly brings into question his sincerity when he provided the sperm and thereby became the gatekeeper of her reproduction rights.
People have children with exes all the time. Offspring do not expire with a relationship.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? People do not
become pregnant with their ex-partner as the father, unless it's a bizarre accident or it's an attempt to entrap a man.
As to whether I would want an ex to use embryos we created together? I honestly do not know, never having been in that circumstance. But assuming this was a man I cared about enough to wish to conceive a child with in the first place--I would quite possibly agree. If I knew it was his ONLY shot at a biological child? Probably, I would, unless there were some other very serious reason to refuse. But not being in that situation, I can only speculate.
How nice of you. You've got no right to make that decision for anyone else, of course.
Again: the law is not clear or united in whether embryos are property or something else. His privacy concerns can be addressed, just not by destroying medical records. His assertion of his rights is violating her assertion of her rights.
No. She has no rights to assert. No one has the right to be a biological parent by forcing someone else to become a biological parent.
