No reproductive rights for men

[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.

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

He made them jointly with someone else from something that come out of his body. He is the owner of his own sperm and the joint owner of the frozen embryo.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

Did i at any point call him a prick?
Seriously?
I could not care any less if he does or does not want to be involved in the kid's upbringing. Really. He wants to avoid the diapers and the emergency room visits, and the soccer games, that's exactly his choice to make. i support it.
But when we do look at his history, the only conditions he cared about establishing was his get-out-of-jail-free card.
So adding psychological and moral considerations to his case seems, to me, to be creating them out of thin air. He really didn't show any such concerns, at any point.
As long as this decision does not lead to him paying more money on the kid than he's already spent in court, i can't imagine he'll say that he's suffered.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

He made them jointly with someone else from something that come out of his body. He is the owner of his own sperm and the joint owner of the frozen embryo.

And even if this wasn't the case, they put together a legal contract specifying the joint ownership of the embryos.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

Did i at any point call him a prick?
Seriously?
I could not care any less if he does or does not want to be involved in the kid's upbringing. Really. He wants to avoid the diapers and the emergency room visits, and the soccer games, that's exactly his choice to make. i support it.
But when we do look at his history, the only conditions he cared about establishing was his get-out-of-jail-free card.
So adding psychological and moral considerations to his case seems, to me, to be creating them out of thin air. He really didn't show any such concerns, at any point.
As long as this decision does not lead to him paying more money on the kid than he's already spent in court, i can't imagine he'll say that he's suffered.

No, you didn't use the term, although I believe 'king rat' was tossed around.

People's decisions not to be fathers against their will ought to be respected. It doesn't matter if they don't want children because they're selfish libertines or because they're concerned about the future of humanity, or because they're the exact opposite of selfish and don't think their genes are the best to pass on. And whether there's a moral difference to this particular man between offspring that he does not have to pay for and no offspring at all does not alter the general point that we need to respect decisions not to be made a father against one's will.

 

[doubtingt]

He made them jointly with someone else from something that come out of his body. He is the owner of his own sperm and the joint owner of the frozen embryo.

And even if this wasn't the case, they put together a legal contract specifying the joint ownership of the embryos.

Exactly, what this ruling says is that contracts have no meaning and that a judge can completely disregard them without any argument that the contract is invalid, but just the judge personally likes one party's motives and interest more than the other.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No, you didn't use the term, although I believe 'king rat' was tossed around.

Not by me.
I readily and easily accept that there are plenty of people who do not share my moral code and try not to judge them too harshly unless and until they shit on my own lawn.

People's decisions not to be fathers against their will ought to be respected.

Yes. I would agree.
Which is why i stipulated that as long as he's not required to be a father by this decision, it doesn't seem to impact his reproductive rights as he would apparently define them. And by father i mean having any responsibility towards the kid.

It doesn't matter if they don't want children because

With respect to the OP claim of 'no reproductive rights for men,' it does matter. As near as i can tell, the 'right' he wants is 'no responsibilities for the kid.'

 

[Metaphor]

Which is why i stipulated that as long as he's not required to be a father by this decision, it doesn't seem to impact his reproductive rights as he would apparently define them. And by father i mean having any responsibility towards the kid.

You can't define away 'father' to mean 'social father'. He clearly did not want to be a social father to the child, but he also did not want to be a biological father unless the hospital destroyed the paternity records. So, he is required to be a father by this decision, against his will.

With respect to the OP claim of 'no reproductive rights for men,' it does matter. As near as i can tell, the 'right' he wants is 'no responsibilities for the kid.'

No, the 'right' he wants is to not become a biological father to a child with that particular woman without his paternity records being destroyed.

His right to do withhold the frozen embryo has been trampled on. His right to not become a biological father under the circumstances he chooses has been trampled on.

The OP is spot on: this man's reproductive rights have been trampled on, and instead of being outraged, people are celebrating it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Not by me.
I readily and easily accept that there are plenty of people who do not share my moral code and try not to judge them too harshly unless and until they shit on my own lawn.

People's decisions not to be fathers against their will ought to be respected.

Yes. I would agree.
Which is why i stipulated that as long as he's not required to be a father by this decision, it doesn't seem to impact his reproductive rights as he would apparently define them. And by father i mean having any responsibility towards the kid.

It doesn't matter if they don't want children because

With respect to the OP claim of 'no reproductive rights for men,' it does matter. As near as i can tell, the 'right' he wants is 'no responsibilities for the kid.'

The decision itself that says that putting the sperm in the egg constitutes consent to implantation, however, leaves a big swinging barn door of precedent to allow the mother to demand child support. I wouldn't care in the least if the decision had said "Lady, you are barred forever from demanding he ever 'be a father' if you do this."

The decision seems written with the express intent that she would be able to come back and demand support from him specifically for her own shitty decision to have and keep a child. If someone is responsible for allowing someone to have children that they can't afford, it's all of us.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Which is why i stipulated that as long as he's not required to be a father by this decision, it doesn't seem to impact his reproductive rights as he would apparently define them. And by father i mean having any responsibility towards the kid.

This is true. The case isn't actually an issue of reproductive rights, despite the fact that the consequence of the ruling is reproduction. It's an issue of contract law. They had a joint piece of property and a contract specifying the conditions under which one of the parties could use that property. The judge made a ruling on the contract which was the exact opposite of what the contract specified simply because one of the parties didn't like the fact that the terms of the contract she'd agreed to didn't let her do what she wanted.

 

[doubtingt]

Which is why i stipulated that as long as he's not required to be a father by this decision, it doesn't seem to impact his reproductive rights as he would apparently define them. And by father i mean having any responsibility towards the kid.

This is true. The case isn't actually an issue of reproductive rights, despite the fact that the consequence of the ruling is reproduction. It's an issue of contract law. They had a joint piece of property and a contract specifying the conditions under which one of the parties could use that property. The judge made a ruling on the contract which was the exact opposite of what the contract specified simply because one of the parties didn't like the fact that the terms of the contract she'd agreed to didn't let her do what she wanted.

Agreed, and if it is about anything beyond contract law, it is about the right to control what is done with one's genetic information. This situation is equivalent to a person agreeing to donate their genetic information to a corporation under a clear clause that the person has the right to determine if, when, and how that information is used. The corporation then says it wants to use the info for some purpose the donor finds grossly immoral and he refuses. Along comes Judge Jerkoff who says "You know, I just don't like this donor and I feel sorry for the corporation and admire the profiteering spirit for which they want to use the donor's dna. Therefore, I am tearing up the contract as though it was never signed and allowing the corporation to do whatever it wants with this man's dna.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Agreed, and if it is about anything beyond contract law, it is about the right to control what is done with one's genetic information. This situation is equivalent to a person agreeing to donate their genetic information to a corporation under a clear clause that the person has the right to determine if, when, and how that information is used. The corporation then says it wants to use the info for some purpose the donor finds grossly immoral and he refuses. Along comes Judge Jerkoff who says "You know, I just don't like this donor and I feel sorry for the corporation and admire the profiteering spirit for which they want to use the donor's dna. Therefore, I am tearing up the contract as though it was never signed and allowing the corporation to do whatever it wants with this man's dna.

Well, in the judge's defence, the CEO of the company is not only one of his golfing buddies, but also a member of all the right social clubs. One cannot expect the law to apply to him in the same way as it does a peasant.

 

[The Paul]

You know, I think Derec might have actually stumbled upon an actual mens rights issue, here.

Basically a judge decided that a woman's desire to have children who are genetically "hers" trumps a mans right not to do so, even in the light of a previously existing agreement guaranteeing him that right.

 

[doubtingt]

For those who see no problem with this ruling, what if the man took the eggs without the wife's consent and had them implanted in his new girlfriend?
Please explain how this would be in any way a greater violation of her rights than what is being done to him.

 

[Jokodo]

For those who see no problem with this ruling, what if the man took the eggs without the wife's consent and had them implanted in his new girlfriend?
Please explain how this would be in any way a greater violation of her rights than what is being done to him.

I haven't seen anyone claim or imply that it would be a greater violation. I expect mostly everyone who feels ambiguous about the present ruling and to refrain from outright condemning the judge for her decition would react in pretty much the same way as they are now doing.

 

[Shadowy Man]

A few pages back someone linked to the actual ruling and it's not nearly as clear cut as some of these posts make it out to be, with regard to 'contracts' etc. I recommend reading the opinion before commenting specifically on this case.

 

[Jarhyn]

Read the ruling. The judge stated that the guy be bound by the co-parenting agreement, which very much WOULD put him on the hook to 'be a father'.

This is part of the summary judgement granted to the woman by the court. Not only did he get boned on the contract, he got shafted by being forced to be a parent too.

 

[Sabine Grant]

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

I will let you reflect on that.

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

IMO, considering the circumstances of this case, he would have no difficulties petitioning for the voluntary termination of his parental rights. It would remove him from the status of being a father. It also ends any possible connection between he and his former girl friend the moment his parental status would be terminated.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

I agree with every thing you say about contracts being set in concrete but there are reasons for exceptions and your wording in this post highlights the exception in this case.

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

No. If a post early in this thread is correct he didn't accede to a request for his sperm. He insisted, on emotional grounds, that his sperm be used instead of donor sperm, which was her preference. He created a problem that wouldn't have existed if he hadn't been feeling like marking his territory when the relationship was in progress. His emotional need not to be biologically "cuckolded" took precedence over her better judgement while they were an item. The conditions under which a contract is drawn sometimes affect the interpretation of it.

It was only his emotional duress that put her in this situation in the first place. She would otherwise have had donor sperm embryos and no contract to dispute. Now that the relationship is over he bears some responsibility for his prior decisions.

I can't help thinking that the actual court case has shafted any chance of keeping his biological paternity secret. Had the embryos just been quietly implanted the child need never have known. Now someone who has ever read a newspaper will surely spill the beans.

 

[Metaphor]

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

I will let you reflect on that.

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

IMO, considering the circumstances of this case, he would have no difficulties petitioning for the voluntary termination of his parental rights. It would remove him from the status of being a father. It also ends any possible connection between he and his former girl friend the moment his parental status would be terminated.

Why on earth should he have to petition anyone for the voluntary termination of his parental rights? He does not want to be a biological father to this woman's child in the first place unless certain conditions were met, and they were not met.

It really beggars belief that there is wholesale support here for forcing someone to be a parent against his expressed wishes.

 

[Metaphor]

No. If a post early in this thread is correct he didn't accede to a request for his sperm. He insisted, on emotional grounds, that his sperm be used instead of donor sperm, which was her preference. He created a problem that wouldn't have existed if he hadn't been feeling like marking his territory when the relationship was in progress. His emotional need not to be biologically "cuckolded" took precedence over her better judgement while they were an item. The conditions under which a contract is drawn sometimes affect the interpretation of it.

How deliciously ironic. The problem was that he wanted to not be cuckolded, to raise another man's child. Yes, how selfish of him to insist that it was his own biological child that he'd be raising.

And yet, not a peep from the peanut gallery about the woman not being satisfied with raising a child not biologicall her own. No, for her, it has to be her own biological child or nothing.

They hypocrisy is really quite breathtaking.

It was only his emotional duress that put her in this situation in the first place. She would otherwise have had donor sperm embryos and no contract to dispute. Now that the relationship is over he bears some responsibility for his prior decisions.

He made his conditions clear. No one held a gun to anyone's head. He did not want to raise someone else's biological child. That point is irrelevant anyway, since he has the right to decide whether he will become a biological or social father, but it's made even more laughable because the woman now insists she does not want to raise someone else's biological child!