No reproductive rights for men

[Toni]

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.

Not really. If she had used donor sperm to 'someday' have the biological child she yearned for, he did not necessarily need to be in any respect involved in the raising of that child. It was a new relationship--only 5 months in when she was diagnosed.

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.

Your inattention to actual facts of the case is breathtaking: she did carry and give birth a child conceived through donor egg and donor sperm. She would like to have another child, one to whom she would be biologically related. The only option available to her to have a biologically related child is to use the pre-embryos created using her ex's sperm.

I think it is worth noting that the physical process of harvesting eggs and the preparation for the process is not inconsequential. She has invested a lot, health wise as well as dollar wise in the creation of those pre-embryos.

He jerked off.

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!

In fact, she's raising a child she gave birth to through donated egg/sperm.

He did NOT make his conditions clear at the outset. The condition of having his medical records destroyed was added later. Because that is actually something that is a) out of her control b) out of the control of the hospital for legal, ethical and regulatory reasons and c) because he KNEW that when he made that 'condition' it is hard to see him as being honest or forthright in his intentions. He could have simply refused instead of creating some smokescreen 'condition' that is not possible to meet nor would it make sense to meet. If he is not being honest, if he was dishonest when entering the contract then the contract may not be valid.

From my perspective, they were both foolish given the short term of the relationship when she was diagnosed and the difficulty of the situation: she could easily die. Even if they had a long standing relationship, her diagnosis would have been a large strain on the relationship. It is unsurprising that they broke up.

Perhaps he agreed to donate sperm out of an emotional response to his girlfriend's plight.

Perhaps she manipulated him into donation. Perhaps he manipulated her into accepting him as the donor with no real intention of agreeing to actual implantation. Which would have been terribly cruel and terribly dishonest.

Honestly, we don't know.

 

[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.

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.

IMO you are inferring way too much to both of my statements. First one was a DIRECT reply to Derec who immediately jumped to the conclusion that the Judge decision was motivated by a radical feminist agenda. I replied giving him FOOD for THOUGHT in view of the use of the "balance approach" which is what some Judges will rely on when the disputing parties cannot meet an agreement. In this specific case, it appeared to me the Judge chose the approach of who would be most harmed. How does my reply to Derec equate "wholesale support here for forcing someone to be a parent against his wishes?"

Second statement quoted in your reply : I merely indicated that Jakob is not permanently stuck in that situation. Because there is the alternative for him to petition a court of law to voluntarily terminate his parental rights. How does such information I provided to Shadowy Man equate " wholesale support here for forcing someone to be a parent against his wishes"?

I will expect you will explain and detail how my quoted statements are compatible with your interpretation. I am getting tired of seeing words being placed into people's mouths with all sorts of inflammatory inferences.

 

[Metaphor]

Not really. If she had used donor sperm to 'someday' have the biological child she yearned for, he did not necessarily need to be in any respect involved in the raising of that child. It was a new relationship--only 5 months in when she was diagnosed.

So what? Are you now saying he did something unconscionable by wanting the embryos to be fertilised by his sperm?

Your inattention to actual facts of the case is breathtaking: she did carry and give birth a child conceived through donor egg and donor sperm. She would like to have another child, one to whom she would be biologically related.

Yes. That's what I am talking about. She would like to have another child that is biologically hers.

For him to want a child to be biologically his was 'selfish' and his macho pride. For her to do it, well, that's noble and beautiful, so noble and beautiful we should trample the reproductive rights of anyone who stands in her way.

The only option available to her to have a biologically related child is to use the pre-embryos created using her ex's sperm.

Yep. That's the only option. Too bad for her to use that option she would have to trample over someone else's property, privacy, and reproductive rights. Well actually not too bad for her, because she's going to do it anyway.

I think it is worth noting that the physical process of harvesting eggs and the preparation for the process is not inconsequential. She has invested a lot, health wise as well as dollar wise in the creation of those pre-embryos.

He jerked off.

So what? What on earth am I supposed to take away from this? Are you saying she has more right to the embryos, despite the agreement and despite the fact that each person was necessary for their creation?

In fact, she's raising a child she gave birth to through donated egg/sperm.

And she isn't satisfied with that. She wants her own biological child now! Why is it okay for her to want it, but selfish of him to have wanted it?

He did NOT make his conditions clear at the outset. The condition of having his medical records destroyed was added later.

Incorrect. That was a compromise, a concession he did not have to make. He could simply have said 'no, you can't have the fertilised embryos at all'. He was in the moral and legal position to do so. And so, he did her a favour by making that concession.

Because that is actually something that is a) out of her control b) out of the control of the hospital for legal, ethical and regulatory reasons and c) because he KNEW that when he made that 'condition' it is hard to see him as being honest or forthright in his intentions. He could have simply refused instead of creating some smokescreen 'condition' that is not possible to meet nor would it make sense to meet. If he is not being honest, if he was dishonest when entering the contract then the contract may not be valid.

Yes, he could have refused outright. It was a concession he made as a favour to her.

What on earth would it mean for him to have been dishonest in entering the contract? Please tell me specifically what that would mean. If you mean, he never ever intended to release the fertilised embryos, and deliberately set out to ruin her chances of biological reproduction? Do you believe that?

From my perspective, they were both foolish given the short term of the relationship when she was diagnosed and the difficulty of the situation: she could easily die. Even if they had a long standing relationship, her diagnosis would have been a large strain on the relationship. It is unsurprising that they broke up.

Perhaps he agreed to donate sperm out of an emotional response to his girlfriend's plight.

Perhaps she manipulated him into donation. Perhaps he manipulated her into accepting him as the donor with no real intention of agreeing to actual implantation. Which would have been terribly cruel and terribly dishonest.

Honestly, we don't know.

That's correct: you don't know. You've got no evidence whatever that the contract was unconscionable.

For what it's worth, if it were truly known that he deliberately acted to ruin her chances of having her own biological child, and signed a contract knowing he never intended to release the fertilised embryos, then I believe that would be unconscionable and setting aside the contract would be okay.

But we don't know that. It seems strange to believe that. He was her partner at the time.

 

[The Paul]

He did NOT make his conditions clear at the outset.

Sure he did. The condition was his consent, which is both simple and clear.

But because some people don't like those conditions they pretend they are complicated and vague instead.

 

[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.

IMO you are inferring way too much to both of my statements. First one was a DIRECT reply to Derec who immediately jumped to the conclusion that the Judge decision was motivated by a radical feminist agenda. I replied giving him FOOD for THOUGHT in view of the use of the "balance approach" which is what some Judges will rely on when the disputing parties cannot meet an agreement. In this specific case, it appeared to me the Judge chose the approach of who would be most harmed. How does my reply to Derec equate "wholesale support here for forcing someone to be a parent against his wishes?"

Second statement quoted in your reply : I merely indicated that Jakob is not permanently stuck in that situation. Because there is the alternative for him to petition a court of law to voluntarily terminate his parental rights. How does such information I provided to Shadowy Man equate " wholesale support here for forcing someone to be a parent against his wishes"?

I will expect you will explain and detail how my quoted statements are compatible with your interpretation. I am getting tired of seeing words being placed into people's mouths with all sorts of inflammatory inferences.

A number of people have said they see no problem with the judge setting aside the contract, in effect forcing this man to be a biological parent against his wishes. Since they have no problem with the judge setting it aside, they have no problem with forcing a man to be a biological parents against his wishes. That's support for forced reproduction.

Your second point is cold comfort. He did not merely want nothing to do with the child, he wanted the child never to have existed in the first place. Add to that, there is already precedent in the United States for the State to sue a sperm donor for maintenance, the case of a man who had already signed away his parental rights and who donated the sperm to a lesbian couple as an act of goodwill. The State did not care; he was the biological father and he was on the hook.

 

[Toni]

So what? Are you now saying he did something unconscionable by wanting the embryos to be fertilised by his sperm?

If he did not truly intend that the embryo be implanted, yes: he deceived her and in effect robbed her of the only chance she would ever have of having a biological child.

Your inattention to actual facts of the case is breathtaking: she did carry and give birth a child conceived through donor egg and donor sperm. She would like to have another child, one to whom she would be biologically related.

Yes. That's what I am talking about. She would like to have another child that is biologically hers.

For him to want a child to be biologically his was 'selfish' and his macho pride. For her to do it, well, that's noble and beautiful, so noble and beautiful we should trample the reproductive rights of anyone who stands in her way.

I am not sure how you can simultaneously argue that he rightfully and understandably wanted the child to be biologically his and not to be 'cuckolded' by her having a child--someday, if she survived-with an anonymous donor and at the same time that he has every right to not want to have the embryo created with his sperm implanted. Which is it? It cannot be both.

The only option available to her to have a biologically related child is to use the pre-embryos created using her ex's sperm.

Yep. That's the only option. Too bad for her to use that option she would have to trample over someone else's property, privacy, and reproductive rights. Well actually not too bad for her, because she's going to do it anyway.

He is also trampling on her rights by attempting to prevent the very thing that she clearly, unequivocally has always wanted--a goal she openly pursued at great financial and physical cost and no doubt significant emotional cost as well.

He has been less forthright. Either he did it because he wanted to help out a friend or he did it because he wanted his girlfriend to have his child or he never wanted kids or he wants to protect the delicate sensibilities of some woman he has yet to meet but who would want to have his child only if he never had a child through sperm donation. He's arguing all of these, simultaneously. You're arguing at least two of those positions which contradict one another.

I think it is worth noting that the physical process of harvesting eggs and the preparation for the process is not inconsequential. She has invested a lot, health wise as well as dollar wise in the creation of those pre-embryos.

He jerked off.

So what? What on earth am I supposed to take away from this? Are you saying she has more right to the embryos, despite the agreement and despite the fact that each person was necessary for their creation?

She has a great deal invested in the embryos, because of the effort it cost her and also because the embryos represent her sole chance for a biological child. He has much less invested: he can have other children whenever he finds that mythological woman who would reject him if she knew he contributed sperm to help someone he once cared about or pretended to care about. Or not.

In fact, she's raising a child she gave birth to through donated egg/sperm.

And she isn't satisfied with that. She wants her own biological child now! Why is it okay for her to want it, but selfish of him to have wanted it?

I never claimed that it is/was selfish for him to have wanted to have a biological child. I do claim that it was selfish of him to insist on using his sperm and then to refuse to allow her to use the resulting embryos, knowing that he is absolutely refusing to allow her something she wants very much and can only have using those embryos. It is morally reprehensible to limit and then destroy her choices according to his whim.

He did NOT make his conditions clear at the outset. The condition of having his medical records destroyed was added later.

Incorrect. That was a compromise, a concession he did not have to make. He could simply have said 'no, you can't have the fertilised embryos at all'. He was in the moral and legal position to do so. And so, he did her a favour by making that concession.

You are incorrect. Initially he never stated that she could use the embryos if the hospital would do something it was legally and ethically forbidden to do (as he would know).

That was no favor but cruelly led her on. At the very least, it renders his objections to be highly suspect.

Because that is actually something that is a) out of her control b) out of the control of the hospital for legal, ethical and regulatory reasons and c) because he KNEW that when he made that 'condition' it is hard to see him as being honest or forthright in his intentions. He could have simply refused instead of creating some smokescreen 'condition' that is not possible to meet nor would it make sense to meet. If he is not being honest, if he was dishonest when entering the contract then the contract may not be valid.

Yes, he could have refused outright. It was a concession he made as a favour to her.

It is no favor if he knew it were impossible which surely he would have known. In fact, this 'concession' and 'favor' is a lie.

What on earth would it mean for him to have been dishonest in entering the contract? Please tell me specifically what that would mean. If you mean, he never ever intended to release the fertilised embryos, and deliberately set out to ruin her chances of biological reproduction? Do you believe that?

From the article in the OP:

After Szafranski agreed to provide his semen, he gave a sample at Northwestern Hospital's fertility clinic, the Chicago Tribune reported.

'It was a very emotional time and I was just trying to support Karla the best way I could,' the firefighter and former nurse told the newspaper.

This is not a ringing endorsement of his plans to actually have those embryos implanted. It is hard to know what he intended: he says so many things that contradict each other. Like this, also from the same linked article:

He agreed and they create three embryos - but two months later he broke up with her and said he no longer wanted children

That's a pretty quick turn around. Under other circumstances, a woman would have time to make other arrangements. But she started chemo immediately after the embryos were created.

That's correct: you don't know. You've got no evidence whatever that the contract was unconscionable.

For what it's worth, if it were truly known that he deliberately acted to ruin her chances of having her own biological child, and signed a contract knowing he never intended to release the fertilised embryos, then I believe that would be unconscionable and setting aside the contract would be okay.

But we don't know that. It seems strange to believe that. He was her partner at the time.

It's not possible to know but my sense is that he never actually thought the embryos would be used. Or rather, he never thought, period. I know very well that media accounts often misquote or take statements out of context. But what we have as given to be his own words contradict each other to the extent that I find it hard to believe that he really intended to create a child with her. In which case, contributing sperm when she had other options was unconscionable.

Now, she was a fool, but I do understand that she received an unexpected diagnosis and had very little time to take the necessary steps to ensure that she could someday have the child she wanted.

 

[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.

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.

IMO you are inferring way too much to both of my statements. First one was a DIRECT reply to Derec who immediately jumped to the conclusion that the Judge decision was motivated by a radical feminist agenda. I replied giving him FOOD for THOUGHT in view of the use of the "balance approach" which is what some Judges will rely on when the disputing parties cannot meet an agreement. In this specific case, it appeared to me the Judge chose the approach of who would be most harmed. How does my reply to Derec equate "wholesale support here for forcing someone to be a parent against his wishes?"

Second statement quoted in your reply : I merely indicated that Jakob is not permanently stuck in that situation. Because there is the alternative for him to petition a court of law to voluntarily terminate his parental rights. How does such information I provided to Shadowy Man equate " wholesale support here for forcing someone to be a parent against his wishes"?

I will expect you will explain and detail how my quoted statements are compatible with your interpretation. I am getting tired of seeing words being placed into people's mouths with all sorts of inflammatory inferences.

A number of people have said they see no problem with the judge setting aside the contract, in effect forcing this man to be a biological parent against his wishes. Since they have no problem with the judge setting it aside, they have no problem with forcing a man to be a biological parents against his wishes. That's support for forced reproduction.

Your second point is cold comfort. He did not merely want nothing to do with the child, he wanted the child never to have existed in the first place. Add to that, there is already precedent in the United States for the State to sue a sperm donor for maintenance, the case of a man who had already signed away his parental rights and who donated the sperm to a lesbian couple as an act of goodwill. The State did not care; he was the biological father and he was on the hook.

Clearly your above in no way supports any of the inflammatory inferences you attached to my quoted statements. You are so outraged at this point that you are blasting folks (like me) who have not even communicated a position based on " The Judge made the right decision" or " The Judge did not make the right decision".

This appears to be a thread where emotionally based reactions are going to prevail with the usual taint of gender war. My opinion is that I sympathize with both sides. I cannot be compelled to pick a side.Really. But what I do not sympathize with is the fact that these 2 adults consumed time and energy and tax payer money because they would not meet half way.Each had their own need they expected to be fulfilled by involving a court of law. On one end, Karla totally obsessing on "I want a biological son or daughter" as if the alternatives would not meet the desire to raise a child from infancy to adulthood while nurturing and caring and loving the child. On the other end, Jakob's determination to benefit of his Constitutional Right (Both Illinois and federal level) to be the sole decision maker as to having any biological children.

Adults who when they agreed to in vitro fertilization did not quite think through all the implications. They did not sign the Co Parent Agreement. Has anyone wondered why?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

This appears to be a thread where emotionally based reactions are going to prevail

Well, it is PD.

 

[The Paul]

...the fact that these 2 adults consumed time and energy and tax payer money because they would not meet half way.Each had their own need they expected to be fulfilled by involving a court of law.

Well no, that didn't exactly happen. Two adults had a discussion and came to an agreement and signed a contract to abide by that agreement. Then one of them later changed their mind and decided to use the court system as a mechanism to force the other party to accept new terms.

 

[Metaphor]

I am not sure how you can simultaneously argue that he rightfully and understandably wanted the child to be biologically his and not to be 'cuckolded' by her having a child--someday, if she survived-with an anonymous donor and at the same time that he has every right to not want to have the embryo created with his sperm implanted. Which is it? It cannot be both.

You don't say! I know it can't be both -- that's why I pointed out the inconsistency. Someone ridiculed the man for not wanting to be cuckolded, but they did not ridicule the woman for wanting the same thing -- to make sure that she was raising her own biological child. In fact, nobody ridiculed the woman for wanting her own biological child, but it was open game on the man.

He is also trampling on her rights by attempting to prevent the very thing that she clearly, unequivocally has always wanted--a goal she openly pursued at great financial and physical cost and no doubt significant emotional cost as well.

No, he is not doing that, because she has no right to do it. She has no moral right to force a man to be a father against his will.

He has been less forthright. Either he did it because he wanted to help out a friend or he did it because he wanted his girlfriend to have his child or he never wanted kids or he wants to protect the delicate sensibilities of some woman he has yet to meet but who would want to have his child only if he never had a child through sperm donation. He's arguing all of these, simultaneously. You're arguing at least two of those positions which contradict one another.

I have not contradicted myself. He is the joint owner of the frozen embryos and he wrote a contract that specifically gave him the option to prevent implantation. When he broke up, he decided that he did not want them implanted. That's that. He has not contradicted himself.

It certainly makes no sense whatever that he wanted to prevent her having her own biological children.

She has a great deal invested in the embryos, because of the effort it cost her and also because the embryos represent her sole chance for a biological child. He has much less invested: he can have other children whenever he finds that mythological woman who would reject him if she knew he contributed sperm to help someone he once cared about or pretended to care about. Or not.

So what? Are they, or are they not, joint owners of the embryos?

I never claimed that it is/was selfish for him to have wanted to have a biological child. I do claim that it was selfish of him to insist on using his sperm and then to refuse to allow her to use the resulting embryos, knowing that he is absolutely refusing to allow her something she wants very much and can only have using those embryos. It is morally reprehensible to limit and then destroy her choices according to his whim.

He did not limit her choices. He could only possibly have increased her choices. She could have used a donor's sperm. No one held a gun to her head.

It is morally reprehensible to force a man to be a biological father against his will. It is morally reprehensible to set aside contracts that are not unconscionable and were entered into by sane adults.

You are incorrect. Initially he never stated that she could use the embryos if the hospital would do something it was legally and ethically forbidden to do (as he would know).

That was no favor but cruelly led her on. At the very least, it renders his objections to be highly suspect.

I'm glad to know you can read his mind. But, who are you to judge the legitimacy of his objections? He has the moral right to refuse them for any reason or no reason at all.

It is no favor if he knew it were impossible which surely he would have known. In fact, this 'concession' and 'favor' is a lie.

Why should he have surely known? The law is often ambiguous. But even if he did know, so what? What if he had instead said 'I would give them to you, but only if the hospital destroyed my records. I know they can't, so I can't give them to you.'

Would that have changed the outcome in any meaningful way?

This is not a ringing endorsement of his plans to actually have those embryos implanted.

Really? Because it sounds like to me he was making a good faith effort for her.

That's a pretty quick turn around.

So what? Is there a different turn around time that would have made you more cautious about violating his privacy, property, and reproductive rights?

Do you want to mother children to men you've broken up with?

Under other circumstances, a woman would have time to make other arrangements. But she started chemo immediately after the embryos were created.

Yes, it's unfortunate for her that the only way for her to have her own biological children would be to violate the privacy, property, and reproductive rights of another person. Well, it would be unfortunate if she weren't in fact going ahead and doing exactly that.

It's not possible to know but my sense is that he never actually thought the embryos would be used. Or rather, he never thought, period. I know very well that media accounts often misquote or take statements out of context. But what we have as given to be his own words contradict each other to the extent that I find it hard to believe that he really intended to create a child with her. In which case, contributing sperm when she had other options was unconscionable.

Now, she was a fool, but I do understand that she received an unexpected diagnosis and had very little time to take the necessary steps to ensure that she could someday have the child she wanted.

Yes, it's unfortunate for her that the only way for her to have her own biological children would be to violate the privacy, property, and reproductive rights of another person. Well, it would be unfortunate if she weren't in fact going ahead and doing exactly that.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Not only do we not know that, but according the article, this man was upset about the hospital being unable or refusing to seal the medical records.

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.

True, but according to the article, that was not his concern. So, you have now adduced two reasons with no basis in fact.

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.

Right, because all contracts are consecrated and sancrosanct. Wow.

 

[Jarhyn]

Contracts MUST BE treated as sacrosanct, particularly in a society where we acknowledge that ethical principles are a better restriction on behavior than our whims. It is the basis of a clearly informed consent, either to waive information or to profess one has it. And signing contracts while influenced by the animal rather than the agency is itself a reckless and dangerous action deserving of sanction to both parties to the contract and it's notary.

As to her, she has no right to do "what she has always wanted" successfully. Everyone has a right to try, except when it harms someone else, but no guarantee of success. Here she would harm another to even attempt it, putting him at unreasonable risk and liability to her future animal impulses, which she has already demonstrated that she cannot control.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Contracts MUST BE treated as sacrosanct, particularly in a society where we acknowledge that ethical principles are a better restriction on behavior than our whims. It is the basis of a clearly informed consent, either to waive information or to profess one has it. And signing contracts while influenced by the animal rather than the agency is itself a reckless and dangerous action deserving of sanction to both parties to the contract and it's notary.

As to her, she has no right to do "what she has always wanted" successfully. Everyone has a right to try, except when it harms someone else, but no guarantee of success. Here she would harm another to even attempt it, putting him at unreasonable risk and liability to her future animal impulses, which she has already demonstrated that she cannot control.

Ya, I really don't get how this is somehow complex. How is treating contracts as sacrosant some kind of negative? Two adults made free decisions, so they should abide by the terms of those decisions.

 

[laughing dog]

Contracts MUST BE treated as sacrosanct, particularly in a society where we acknowledge that ethical principles are a better restriction on behavior than our whims. It is the basis of a clearly informed consent, either to waive information or to profess one has it. And signing contracts while influenced by the animal rather than the agency is itself a reckless and dangerous action deserving of sanction to both parties to the contract and it's notary.

There are always exceptions to the rule because people are not perfect.

C
As to her, she has no right to do "what she has always wanted" successfully. Everyone has a right to try, except when it harms someone else, but no guarantee of success. Here she would harm another to even attempt it, putting him at unreasonable risk and liability to her future animal impulses, which she has already demonstrated that she cannot control.

I think you are confusing rhetorical excess with analysis.

 

[The Paul]

You know, all these speculative arguments about how the contract should be waived because Jacob Szafranski is just a big liar-face just sort of assume without stating it that Karla Dunston is so staggeringly stupid it's surprising she even knows what a lawyer is.

So these fantasies about how Szafranski is some kind of mustache twirling villain who's primary concern here is preventing Dunston from becoming the mother of her own biological children... how's that play out at the negotiation of the contract? He tells her "Oh sure, you can use the embryos any time you want, doesn't matter when, doesn't matter if we're still together, I certainly won't object." but then insists on there being a clause in the contract that she can't use the embryos without his permission?

...and she wasn't able to figure that one out? It simply never occurred to here that if he's insisting on a clause where she can't use the embryos without his consent that there might be scenarios in which he would not give his consent?

Keeping in mind this woman has signed a contract, so we know she's at least smart enough to spell her own name, it's pretty clear she knew at the time of the agreement that she might end up not being able to use those embryos.

As for Szafranski's motivation for that clause? No need to assign all sorts of villainous schemes to him. They'd only been dating for five months, he probably didn't want to commit to being the father of the children of a woman he'd only been dating for five months. Afterall, it might not work out.

And it didn't.

Sucks to be him though, because a judge said he's got to be the father of her children anyway.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

As for Szafranski's motivation for that clause? No need to assign all sorts of villainous schemes to him. They'd only been dating for five months, he probably didn't want to commit to being the father of the children of a woman he'd only been dating for five months. Afterall, it might not work out.

Well, it's the old adage that if the law's in your favour, pound the law. If the law's not in your favour, pound the table.

Maligning the motivations of the father allows one to ignore the fact that there was a pretty clearcut contract which stipulated quite clearly what happens if they get into this exact situation.

 

[Frikki]

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.

<edit>

 

[Toni]

Contracts MUST BE treated as sacrosanct, particularly in a society where we acknowledge that ethical principles are a better restriction on behavior than our whims. It is the basis of a clearly informed consent, either to waive information or to profess one has it. And signing contracts while influenced by the animal rather than the agency is itself a reckless and dangerous action deserving of sanction to both parties to the contract and it's notary.

As to her, she has no right to do "what she has always wanted" successfully. Everyone has a right to try, except when it harms someone else, but no guarantee of success. Here she would harm another to even attempt it, putting him at unreasonable risk and liability to her future animal impulses, which she has already demonstrated that she cannot control.

What about the harm done to her? Or does she not matter?

 

[Toni]

You know, all these speculative arguments about how the contract should be waived because Jacob Szafranski is just a big liar-face just sort of assume without stating it that Karla Dunston is so staggeringly stupid it's surprising she even knows what a lawyer is.

So these fantasies about how Szafranski is some kind of mustache twirling villain who's primary concern here is preventing Dunston from becoming the mother of her own biological children... how's that play out at the negotiation of the contract? He tells her "Oh sure, you can use the embryos any time you want, doesn't matter when, doesn't matter if we're still together, I certainly won't object." but then insists on there being a clause in the contract that she can't use the embryos without his permission?

...and she wasn't able to figure that one out? It simply never occurred to here that if he's insisting on a clause where she can't use the embryos without his consent that there might be scenarios in which he would not give his consent?

Keeping in mind this woman has signed a contract, so we know she's at least smart enough to spell her own name, it's pretty clear she knew at the time of the agreement that she might end up not being able to use those embryos.

As for Szafranski's motivation for that clause? No need to assign all sorts of villainous schemes to him. They'd only been dating for five months, he probably didn't want to commit to being the father of the children of a woman he'd only been dating for five months. Afterall, it might not work out.

And it didn't.

Sucks to be him though, because a judge said he's got to be the father of her children anyway.

You aren't really understanding the case:

1. They both agreed that the use of the embryos would be conditional upon both agreeing to use the embryos.
2. She asked. He refused.
3. THEN he said sure, as long as the hospital will destroy my medical records.
4. She said fine by her but the hospital refused as it is legally obligated to do.

His conditional agreement seems based upon a lie: he worked in the medical field and knew that hospitals are obligated through a multitude of laws, regulations and policies, to maintain health records and cannot destroy them.

His objection cannot be that he doesn't want the embryos used: he agreed that they could be used. His concern is that he be traced as the sperm donor. Not that the embryos be used. This concern can be addressed legally by a document which is signed by a judge.

 

[Toni]

You don't say! I know it can't be both -- that's why I pointed out the inconsistency. Someone ridiculed the man for not wanting to be cuckolded, but they did not ridicule the woman for wanting the same thing -- to make sure that she was raising her own biological child. In fact, nobody ridiculed the woman for wanting her own biological child, but it was open game on the man.

I didn't ridicule the man. I don't think the two positions are analogous: It is apparent that becoming a parent was something that was very important to her. 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.

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 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.

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?

He is also trampling on her rights by attempting to prevent the very thing that she clearly, unequivocally has always wanted--a goal she openly pursued at great financial and physical cost and no doubt significant emotional cost as well.

No, he is not doing that, because she has no right to do it. She has no moral right to force a man to be a father against his will.

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.

He has been less forthright. Either he did it because he wanted to help out a friend or he did it because he wanted his girlfriend to have his child or he never wanted kids or he wants to protect the delicate sensibilities of some woman he has yet to meet but who would want to have his child only if he never had a child through sperm donation. He's arguing all of these, simultaneously. You're arguing at least two of those positions which contradict one another.

I have not contradicted myself. He is the joint owner of the frozen embryos and he wrote a contract that specifically gave him the option to prevent implantation. When he broke up, he decided that he did not want them implanted. That's that. He has not contradicted himself.

Yes, he did contradict himself. He agreed to it (in theory) when he provided sperm and signed 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 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.

It certainly makes no sense whatever that he wanted to prevent her having her own biological children.

That is exactly what he is doing now: trying to prevent her from having her own biological children. 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. Instead, he insists on an impossibility. This is again dishonest.

So what? Are they, or are they not, joint owners of the embryos?

It is not clear that the embryos are property, under the law


http://www.macelree.com/the-legal-un...e-proceedings/

The law will continues to be molded by the facts and circumstances of each particular divorce and the personal views of the presiding judge, rather than upon the guidance of established legal precedent. The few courts that have expressed their views on the issue have been inconsistent in their characterizations of frozen embryos. These courts have adopted three divergent theories on the legal status of a frozen embryo:
Some have decided to grant frozen embryos all the legal rights of humans as they are biologically alive and have the potential to be born. This theory distinguishes the Supreme Court’s holding in Roe v. Wade on grounds that the embryos were created with the intent of producing human life and, consequently, no reproductive rights have been violated.
Other courts have recognized frozen embryos as property, advancing the argument that frozen embryos are akin to human tissue in their legal status as property.
In trying to reconcile the arguments made by both sides on the debate, a third position has been adopted by some courts that embryos require a special respect and status: not quite human life but something more than just mere property.

I never claimed that it is/was selfish for him to have wanted to have a biological child. I do claim that it was selfish of him to insist on using his sperm and then to refuse to allow her to use the resulting embryos, knowing that he is absolutely refusing to allow her something she wants very much and can only have using those embryos. It is morally reprehensible to limit and then destroy her choices according to his whim.

He did not limit her choices. He could only possibly have increased her choices. She could have used a donor's sperm. No one held a gun to her head.

It is morally reprehensible to force a man to be a biological father against his will. It is morally reprehensible to set aside contracts that are not unconscionable and were entered into by sane adults.

By donating his sperm, he eliminated her opportunity to use the sperm of an anonymous donor. 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.

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.

Her account is that he insisted. His account is that he did it as a favor but really didn't mean it.

He deceived her in his intentions. Aside from any moral and ethical issues, that would nullify the contract.


In exercising his rights, he is trampling hers. Surely her rights are as important. A contract that is not entered into freely and with good faith is unconscionable. And likely invalid.

You are incorrect. Initially he never stated that she could use the embryos if the hospital would do something it was legally and ethically forbidden to do (as he would know).

That was no favor but cruelly led her on. At the very least, it renders his objections to be highly suspect.

I'm glad to know you can read his mind. But, who are you to judge the legitimacy of his objections? He has the moral right to refuse them for any reason or no reason at all.

It is no favor if he knew it were impossible which surely he would have known. In fact, this 'concession' and 'favor' is a lie.

Why should he have surely known? The law is often ambiguous. But even if he did know, so what? What if he had instead said 'I would give them to you, but only if the hospital destroyed my records. I know they can't, so I can't give them to you.'

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.

Really? Because it sounds like to me he was making a good faith effort for her.

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.

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.

Yes, it's unfortunate for her that the only way for her to have her own biological children would be to violate the privacy, property, and reproductive rights of another person. Well, it would be unfortunate if she weren't in fact going ahead and doing exactly that.

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.