No reproductive rights for men

[ksen]

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.

I'm having a hard time caring about this. It doesn't bother me that much if a contract gets altered because the situation on the ground has changed. Businesses do this to each other all the time.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

I didn't comment on the validity of the contract, but the man's character or lack there of.

The laws about reproduction and reproductive rights have yet to catch up with the technology so more and more often couples are having to resort to contract law and the courts to settle disputes and claims. The contract says what it says and it was duly signed and witnessed. Then folks changed their minds. And it ended up in court where a judge, well, judged. Was the ruling correct? Depends on subsequent court actions. He is standing by the contract and the contract was agreed to by her. I don't know enough about case to state anymore than that since I don't know reproductive law and I didn't hear or read all of the relevant testimony.

But to say to someone "I will do x if you do y," and then say "it is impossible for you to do y to my satisfaction," makes you a rat and quite possibly a king rat.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Does it seem to anyone else that when a woman says 'reproductive rights' she means 'you can't tell me what to do with my body!'
And when a man says it, it means 'you can't force me to pay for a kid.'

??

 

[ksen]

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.

I didn't comment on the validity of the contract, but the man's character or lack there of.

The laws about reproduction and reproductive rights have yet to catch up with the technology so more and more often couples are having to resort to contract law and the courts to settle disputes and claims. The contract says what it says and it was duly signed and witnessed. Then folks changed their minds. And it ended up in court where a judge, well, judged. Was the ruling correct? Depends on subsequent court actions. He is standing by the contract and the contract was agreed to by her. I don't know enough about case to state anymore than that since I don't know reproductive law and I didn't hear or read all of the relevant testimony.

But to say to someone "I will do x if you do y," and then say "it is impossible for you to do y to my satisfaction," makes you a rat and quite possibly a king rat.

On the other hand maybe it's for the best if she doesn't reproduce so she doesn't have the chance to pass on her shitty-taste-in-men gene to a poor, unsuspecting daughter.

 

[fromderinside]

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.

The court reasoned that by donating sperm he had executed the critical element which, in absence of the signature, was the signature. So by the terms of the contract he could, in the eyes of the court, only be a dick, or a son-of-a-bitch, or, as a complainant, a prick.

Circle squared!

 

[Jarhyn]

Does it seem to anyone else that when a woman says 'reproductive rights' she means 'you can't tell me what to do with my body!'
And when a man says it, it means 'you can't force me to pay for a kid.'

??

and both fall under the larger and still valid moral principle of 'don't force me to accept consequences that I do not consent to, while there is an alternative'.

The carrying of a pregnancy, responsibility for a child, these are both things that MUST be taken entirely willingly if we are going to call any of this egalitarian.

 

[Bronzeage]

Does it seem to anyone else that when a woman says 'reproductive rights' she means 'you can't tell me what to do with my body!'
And when a man says it, it means 'you can't force me to pay for a kid.'

??

That is pretty much what it's all about.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Does it seem to anyone else that when a woman says 'reproductive rights' she means 'you can't tell me what to do with my body!'
And when a man says it, it means 'you can't force me to pay for a kid.'

??

and both fall under the larger and still valid moral principle of 'don't force me to accept consequences that I do not consent to, while there is an alternative'.

Yes, but his thing with the records shows that he doesn't seem to have an objection to the kid existing, just the kid ever finding him, or any future love interest finding the kid.

So with this judgment, there is a kid, which in itself has no impact on the male version of reproductive rights.
When and if any judge decides that he still has to pay for the kid, then we can entertain complaints that males have no reproductive rights.

 

[Metaphor]

Does it seem to anyone else that when a woman says 'reproductive rights' she means 'you can't tell me what to do with my body!'
And when a man says it, it means 'you can't force me to pay for a kid.'

??

and both fall under the larger and still valid moral principle of 'don't force me to accept consequences that I do not consent to, while there is an alternative'.

Yes, but his thing with the records shows that he doesn't seem to have an objection to the kid existing, just the kid ever finding him, or any future love interest finding the kid.

So with this judgment, there is a kid, which in itself has no impact on the male version of reproductive rights.
When and if any judge decides that he still has to pay for the kid, then we can entertain complaints that males have no reproductive rights.

No. He objects to the kid existing unless certain circumstances are met. They have not been met.

When you say 'it has no impact', I am gobsmacked you can actually believe this -- that it does not matter that a man's DNA can be stolen, so long as he doesn't have to pay for the child. Do you really believe this? Do you really believe there is no psychological and moral difference to this man between a kid existing that he doesn't have to pay for, and no kid existing at all?

- - - Updated - - -

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.

I didn't comment on the validity of the contract, but the man's character or lack there of.

The laws about reproduction and reproductive rights have yet to catch up with the technology so more and more often couples are having to resort to contract law and the courts to settle disputes and claims. The contract says what it says and it was duly signed and witnessed. Then folks changed their minds. And it ended up in court where a judge, well, judged. Was the ruling correct? Depends on subsequent court actions. He is standing by the contract and the contract was agreed to by her. I don't know enough about case to state anymore than that since I don't know reproductive law and I didn't hear or read all of the relevant testimony.

But to say to someone "I will do x if you do y," and then say "it is impossible for you to do y to my satisfaction," makes you a rat and quite possibly a king rat.

On the other hand maybe it's for the best if she doesn't reproduce so she doesn't have the chance to pass on her shitty-taste-in-men gene to a poor, unsuspecting daughter.

I agree. Any woman who would renege on an agreement and have a child against the father's will is not the kind of genetic or moral stock that needs to keep reproducing.

 

[Bronzeage]

Does it seem to anyone else that when a woman says 'reproductive rights' she means 'you can't tell me what to do with my body!'
And when a man says it, it means 'you can't force me to pay for a kid.'

??

and both fall under the larger and still valid moral principle of 'don't force me to accept consequences that I do not consent to, while there is an alternative'.

The carrying of a pregnancy, responsibility for a child, these are both things that MUST be taken entirely willingly if we are going to call any of this egalitarian.

This sound like a "get out of jail free" card.

 

[Keith&Co.]

When you say 'it has no impact', I am gobsmacked you can actually believe this -- that it does not matter that a man's DNA can be stolen, so long as he doesn't have to pay for the child. Do you really believe this?

I believe HE believes this. I am certain he doesn't care where his DNA went as long as the kid never shows up on his doorstep asking for tuition or 18 years of back allowance.

Do you really believe there is no psychological and moral difference to this man between a kid existing that he doesn't have to pay for, and no kid existing at all?

In his case, yes, i do.

None of the conditions he demanded involved being part of any particular decisions in the kid's upbringing. No involvement in choosing schools, religion, sports, no rights to visit if he ever starts to wonder about his kid, no demands for visitations. No updates on his grades or extracurricular activites.

I am certain he wanted to beat off, wipe off and take off. The conditions were only about him, his privacy. Not for the benefits of the child, not the best interest of his DNA. Just how it affects his own personal future.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

I'm having a hard time caring about this. It doesn't bother me that much if a contract gets altered because the situation on the ground has changed. Businesses do this to each other all the time.

No, businesses don't do this all the time. If and when a contract is altered it is under the agreement of both parties to alter it.

It is a generally morally accepted principle that you should keep promises. This is recognised in the law as well, except in cases where keeping the promise are so harmful that it does less harm to set aside the agreement and damage the trust people have in future agreements, than to attempt to enforce the agreement (unconscionable contracts).

There is nothing like that here. There is no ambiguity about what the contract says and what rights it gives to the joint owners.

This is a sad situation for the woman. There's no way for her to have her own biological children without infringing on the rights of another. But she has no right to infringe on the rights of another, so that's an end to it.

But my sympathy is limited. She's shown she would gladly ignore the contract if she could, and she is hellbent on having her own biological child, as if that want trumped everything else. It doesn't.

 

[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.

I'm having a hard time caring about this. It doesn't bother me that much if a contract gets altered because the situation on the ground has changed. Businesses do this to each other all the time.

But the situation here didn't change. They were aware of the possibility of infertility as a result of the cancer treatments so prepared the embryos. They were aware of the possibility that they might not be together in the future so they put clauses into the contract requiring consent of both parties to use the embryos. The situation which they found themselves in was one of the situations covered by the terms of the contract, so no alteration of the contract was necessary for resolving the dispute because the resolution of this exact situation had been specified in the contract.

Then the judge just threw the contract away and resolved the dispute by ignoring the contract that both parties had signed. That's a bad action on the part of the judge.

 

[Jarhyn]

Does it seem to anyone else that when a woman says 'reproductive rights' she means 'you can't tell me what to do with my body!'
And when a man says it, it means 'you can't force me to pay for a kid.'

??

and both fall under the larger and still valid moral principle of 'don't force me to accept consequences that I do not consent to, while there is an alternative'.

Yes, but his thing with the records shows that he doesn't seem to have an objection to the kid existing, just the kid ever finding him, or any future love interest finding the kid.

So with this judgment, there is a kid, which in itself has no impact on the male version of reproductive rights.
When and if any judge decides that he still has to pay for the kid, then we can entertain complaints that males have no reproductive rights.

No. The issue is that he doesn't want to be forced to "be a father", not to "never have someone who looks a little like him and has some DNA similar to his own".

I could care less if someone has bits of DNA that originated with me. I could care less if someone outright cloned me. I cannot allow such to happen in the current social/legal context, however, where every day lunatic judges and lawyers actually enforce such arbitrary and magical-thinking based judgements as to declare me fiscally responsible for those children merely because of that similarity.

A woman has two reproductive based rights: the right to choose not to be responsible for a child, and the right to not have her life threatened by its parisitism while it gestates. A man doesn't have to deal much with #2. Lucky us. But we should have the same access to #1, and just because nature does something unfair to women, that does not authorize further unfairness to others. The answer is not to hobble everyone else, but rather to work on fixing the actual problem at its root.

 

[Jokodo]

Does it seem to anyone else that when a woman says 'reproductive rights' she means 'you can't tell me what to do with my body!'
And when a man says it, it means 'you can't force me to pay for a kid.'

??

and both fall under the larger and still valid moral principle of 'don't force me to accept consequences that I do not consent to, while there is an alternative'.

Yes, but his thing with the records shows that he doesn't seem to have an objection to the kid existing, just the kid ever finding him, or any future love interest finding the kid.

So with this judgment, there is a kid, which in itself has no impact on the male version of reproductive rights.
When and if any judge decides that he still has to pay for the kid, then we can entertain complaints that males have no reproductive rights.

No. He objects to the kid existing unless certain circumstances are met. They have not been met.

When you say 'it has no impact', I am gobsmacked you can actually believe this -- that it does not matter that a man's DNA can be stolen, so long as he doesn't have to pay for the child. Do you really believe this?<snip>

It's not me you asked, but I for one really believe that. As far as I'm aware people don't hold a copyright to the DNA they carry. If they did, they'd have to have a say in whether and under what conditions their close relatives may or may not reproduce: Because when your parent, child, or your full sibling has two kids, as much of "your" DNA gets passed on to the next generation as when you have one.

 

[Metaphor]

I believe HE believes this. I am certain he doesn't care where his DNA went as long as the kid never shows up on his doorstep asking for tuition or 18 years of back allowance.

Do you really believe there is no psychological and moral difference to this man between a kid existing that he doesn't have to pay for, and no kid existing at all?

In his case, yes, i do.

None of the conditions he demanded involved being part of any particular decisions in the kid's upbringing. No involvement in choosing schools, religion, sports, no rights to visit if he ever starts to wonder about his kid, no demands for visitations. No updates on his grades or extracurricular activites.

I am certain he wanted to beat off, wipe off and take off. The conditions were only about him, his privacy. Not for the benefits of the child, not the best interest of his DNA. Just how it affects his own personal future.

You speak as if there is a child to speak of. There is not. There is a frozen embryo. He does not have any moral obligations to a frozen embryo. A frozen embryo is not and ought not to be in our moral sphere of concern, because there is nothing it is like to be a frozen embryo. The fate of an earthworm needs more moral consideration than a frozen embryo.

The man agreed to use his sperm to fertilise the woman's eggs. He had no moral obligation to do that.

The man agreed to let the woman use the embryos, even when he had initially said no, as long as certain conditions were met. He had no moral obligation to concede the use of the embryos. Indeed, his concession was doing the woman a favour, since he had no interest in bearing offspring with her.

But when his conditions weren't met, we now get a chorus of protest from the peanut gallery: what a cunt, what a selfish prick.

Apparently, we live in a universe where not wanting to father offspring with a particular woman and admitting to that makes you a cunt. Apparently, we live in a universe where ignoring contracts are seen as no problem, a world where men can be made to be biological fathers against their will and that's morally okay, a world where a woman is not at all regarded as selfish for wanting to have her own biological children, even though to do so what infringe the rights of another and there are more than too many children in the world already.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No. The issue is that he doesn't want to be forced to "be a father", not to "never have someone who looks a little like him and has some DNA similar to his own".

A distinction that makes no difference in this decision. No one's telling him to assume fiscal responsibility for this child, not in this judgment.

Worries about precedent and judgements that may follow are not unreal, but this decision does not yet support the title and the wailing of the OP.

 

[Metaphor]

Does it seem to anyone else that when a woman says 'reproductive rights' she means 'you can't tell me what to do with my body!'
And when a man says it, it means 'you can't force me to pay for a kid.'

??

and both fall under the larger and still valid moral principle of 'don't force me to accept consequences that I do not consent to, while there is an alternative'.

Yes, but his thing with the records shows that he doesn't seem to have an objection to the kid existing, just the kid ever finding him, or any future love interest finding the kid.

So with this judgment, there is a kid, which in itself has no impact on the male version of reproductive rights.
When and if any judge decides that he still has to pay for the kid, then we can entertain complaints that males have no reproductive rights.

No. He objects to the kid existing unless certain circumstances are met. They have not been met.

When you say 'it has no impact', I am gobsmacked you can actually believe this -- that it does not matter that a man's DNA can be stolen, so long as he doesn't have to pay for the child. Do you really believe this?<snip>

It's not me you asked, but I for one really believe that. As far as I'm aware people don't hold a copyright to the DNA they carry. If they did, they'd have to have a say in whether and under what conditions their close relatives may or may not reproduce: Because when your parent, child, or your full sibling has two kids, as much of "your" DNA gets passed on to the next generation as when you have one.

This is a derail, but you're saying there would be no problem if someone stole your sperm (or even got a skin cell from a cup you used with futuristic spacey-wacey technology), and made a baby with it? That doesn't seem like something that needs a bit more consideration?

People don't own their DNA but they sure as hell own their own bodies. He owned those frozen embryos jointly, and the conditions of ownership were clear.

 

[Metaphor]

Does it seem to anyone else that when a woman says 'reproductive rights' she means 'you can't tell me what to do with my body!'
And when a man says it, it means 'you can't force me to pay for a kid.'

??

and both fall under the larger and still valid moral principle of 'don't force me to accept consequences that I do not consent to, while there is an alternative'.

The carrying of a pregnancy, responsibility for a child, these are both things that MUST be taken entirely willingly if we are going to call any of this egalitarian.

This sound like a "get out of jail free" card.

Not being falsely imprisoned is not a 'get out of jail free' card.

 

[Jokodo]

Does it seem to anyone else that when a woman says 'reproductive rights' she means 'you can't tell me what to do with my body!'
And when a man says it, it means 'you can't force me to pay for a kid.'

??

and both fall under the larger and still valid moral principle of 'don't force me to accept consequences that I do not consent to, while there is an alternative'.

Yes, but his thing with the records shows that he doesn't seem to have an objection to the kid existing, just the kid ever finding him, or any future love interest finding the kid.

So with this judgment, there is a kid, which in itself has no impact on the male version of reproductive rights.
When and if any judge decides that he still has to pay for the kid, then we can entertain complaints that males have no reproductive rights.

No. He objects to the kid existing unless certain circumstances are met. They have not been met.

When you say 'it has no impact', I am gobsmacked you can actually believe this -- that it does not matter that a man's DNA can be stolen, so long as he doesn't have to pay for the child. Do you really believe this?<snip>

It's not me you asked, but I for one really believe that. As far as I'm aware people don't hold a copyright to the DNA they carry. If they did, they'd have to have a say in whether and under what conditions their close relatives may or may not reproduce: Because when your parent, child, or your full sibling has two kids, as much of "your" DNA gets passed on to the next generation as when you have one.

This is a derail, but you're saying there would be no problem if someone stole your sperm (or even got a skin cell from a cup you used with futuristic spacey-wacey technology), and made a baby with it? That doesn't seem like something that needs a bit more consideration?

People don't own their DNA but they sure as hell own their own bodies. He owned those frozen embryos jointly, and the conditions of ownership were clear.

Those frozen embryos were at no point a part of his body.