[DIV class=logo](//%5B/DIV%5D%5BDIV%20class=headline%5DWoman%20loses%20frozen%20embryos%20fight%20%5B/DIV%5D%5BDIV%20class=ibox%5D%5BTABLE%5D%5BTBODY%5D%5BTR%5D%5BTD%20width=5%5D%5B/TD%5D%5BTD%20class=fact%5D%5B!--So--%5D%5B!--Eo--%5D%5B!--So--%5D%5B!--Eo--%5D%5B!--Smiiib--%5D%5B/TD%5D%5B/TR%5D%5B/TBODY%5D%5B/TABLE%5D%5BB%5DA%20woman%20left%20infertile%20after%20cancer%20treatment%20cannot%20use%20her%20frozen%20embryos%20to%20have%20a%20baby,%20the%20European%20Court%20of%20Human%20Rights%20has%20ruled.%20%5B/B%5DNatallie%20Evans%20started%20IVF%20treatment%20with%20her%20then%20partner%20Howard%20Johnston%20in%202001%20but%20he%20withdrew%20consent%20for%20the%20embryos%20to%20be%20used%20after%20they%20split%20up.%20Ms%20Evans%20went%20to%20the%20Strasbourg%20court%20after%20exhausting%20the%20UK%20legal%20process.%20She%20now%20hopes%20to%20appeal%20to%20the%20Grand%20Jury%20of%20the%20European%20Court,%20but%20still%20wants%20her%20ex-fianc%C3%A9%20to%20change%20his%20mind.%20%5B/DIV%5D%5BDIV%20class=bo%5D%5B/DIV%5D%5BDIV%20class=ibox%5D%5BTABLE%5D%5BTBODY%5D%5BTR%5D%5BTD%20width=5%5D%5B/TD%5D%5BTD%20class=fact%5D%5B!--Smva--%5D%5BB%5DThe%20key%20thing%20for%20me%20was%20just%20to%20be%20able%20to%20decide%20when,%20and%20if,%20I%20would%20start%20a%20family%20%5B/B%5D%5B!--Emva--%5D%5B!--Smva--%5DHoward%20Johnston%20%5B!--Emva--%5D%5B!--So--%5D%5B!--Eo--%5D%5B!--Smiiib--%5D%5B/TD%5D%5B/TR%5D%5B/TBODY%5D%5B/TABLE%5D%5B/DIV%5D%5BDIV%20class=bo%5DMs%20Evans%20said:%20%22I'm%20still%20as%20determined%20to%20do%20whatever%20it%20takes%20to%20have%20a%20child%20of%20my%20own.%22%20She%20added:%20%22Howard%20may%20feel%20it's%20too%20late%20for%20him%20to%20change%20his%20mind,%20but%20it's%20not.%22%20But%20Mr%20Johnston%20said:%20%22It%20seems%20that%20common%20sense%20has%20prevailed.%20%22The%20key%20thing%20for%20me%20was%20just%20to%20be%20able%20to%20decide%20when,%20and%20if,%20I%20would%20start%20a%20family.%22%20%5B/DIV%5D%5BDIV%20class=ibox%5D%5BTABLE%5D%5BTBODY%5D%5BTR%5D%5BTD%20width=5%5D%5B/TD%5D%5BTD%20class=fact%5D%5BDIV%20class=sih%5DREAD%20THE%20FULL%20JUDGEMENT%20%5B/DIV%5D%5B!--Smiiib--%5D%5B!--Smva--%5DMost%20computers%20will%20open%20PDF%20documents%20automatically,%20but%20you%20may%20need%20to%20download%20Adobe%20Acrobat%20Reader.%20%5B!--Emva--%5D%5B/TD%5D%5B/TR%5D%5B/TBODY%5D%5B/TABLE%5D%5B/DIV%5D%5BDIV%20class=bo%5DBut%20he%20added:%20%22I'm%20not%20thinking%20about%20this%20in%20terms%20of%20a%20victory.%22%20Ms%20Evans'%20legal%20team%20had%20asked%20the%20judges%20to%20consider%20whether%20the%20UK%20law,%20under%20which%20the%20six%20stored%20embryos%20would%20be%20destroyed%20in%20October%20this%20year,%20was%20in%20breach%20of%20her%20human%20rights.%20%5BB%5DRight-to-life%20%5B/B%5DA%20panel%20of%20seven%20judges%20made%20the%20ruling,%20which%20read:%20%22The%20Court,%20like%20the%20national%20courts,%20had%20great%20sympathy%20for%20the%20plight%20of%20the%20applicant%20who,%20if%20implantation%20did%20not%20take%20place,%20would%20be%20deprived%20of%20the%20ability%20to%20give%20birth%20to%20her%20own%20child.%22%20%5B/DIV%5D%5BDIV%20class=ibox%5D%5BTABLE%5D%5BTBODY%5D%5BTR%5D%5BTD%20width=5%5D%5B/TD%5D%5BTD%20class=fact%5D%5B!--Smva--%5D%5BB%5DI'm%20still%20as%20determined%20to%20do%20whatever%20it%20takes%20to%20have%20a%20child%20of%20my%20own%20%5B/B%5D%5B!--Emva--%5D%5B!--Smva--%5DNatallie%20Evans%20%5B!--Emva--%5D%5B!--So--%5D%5B!--Eo--%5D%5B!--Smiiib--%5D%5B/TD%5D%5B/TR%5D%5B/TBODY%5D%5B/TABLE%5D%5B/DIV%5D%5BDIV%20class=bo%5DBut%20it%20was%20ruled,%20in%20a%20majority%20verdict%20that,%20even%20in%20such%20exceptional%20circumstances%20as%20Ms%20Evans',%20the%20right%20to%20a%20family%20life%20-%20enshrined%20in%20article%20eight%20of%20the%20European%20Convention%20of%20Human%20Rights%20-%20could%20not%20override%20Mr%20Johnston's%20withdrawal%20of%20consent.%20It%20also%20ruled%20unanimously%20that%20the%20embryos%20did%20not%20have%20an%20independent%20right%20to%20life.%20%5BB%5DCancer%20diagnosis%20%5B/B%5DThe%20UK's%20Court%20of%20Appeal%20and%20High%20Court%20had%20both%20ruled%20that%20Ms%20Evans,%20who%20is%20in%20her%20early%2030s,%20could%20not%20use%20the%20embryos%20and%20she%20failed%20in%20her%20bid%20to%20take%20the%20case%20to%20the%20House%20of%20Lords.%20%5B/DIV%5D%5BDIV%20class=ibox%5D%5BTABLE%5D%5BTBODY%5D%5BTR%5D%5BTD%20width=5%5D%5B/TD%5D%5BTD%20class=fact%5D%5BDIV%20class=sih%5DHAVE%20YOUR%20SAY%20%5B/DIV%5D%5B!--Smva--%5D%5BB%5DConsent%20cannot%20and%20should%20not%20be%20overridden%20%5B/B%5D%5B!--Emva--%5D%5B!--Smva--%5DPatricia,%20London,%20UK%20%5B!--Emva--%5D%5B!--So--%5D%5B!--Eo--%5D%5B!--Smiiib--%5D%5B/TD%5D%5B/TR%5D%5B/TBODY%5D%5B/TABLE%5D%5B/DIV%5D%5BDIV%20class=bo%5DMs%20Evans,%20from%20Wiltshire,%20underwent%20IVF%20treatment%20following%20a%20diagnosis%20of%20ovarian%20cancer%20in%20which%20the%20embryos%20were%20created%20and%20placed%20in%20storage.%20She%20has%20argued%20that%20Mr%20Johnston,%20from%20Gloucester,%20had%20already%20consented%20to%20their%20creation,%20storage%20and%20use,%20and%20should%20not%20be%20allowed%20to%20change%20his%20mind.%20Current%20UK%20laws%20require%20both%20the%20man%20and%20woman%20to%20give%20consent,%20and%20allow%20either%20party%20to%20withdraw%20that%20consent%20up%20to%20the%20point%20where%20the%20embryos%20are%20implanted.%20A%20Department%20of%20Health%20spokeswoman%20welcomed%20the%20European%20Court%20judgment.%20She%20said%20the%20department%20recognised%20the%20distress%20caused%20to%20Ms%20Evans%20during%20the%20legal%20process,%20and%20added%20a%20review%20of%20the%201990%20Human%20Fertilisation%20and%20Embryology%20Act,%20which%20included%20the%20issue%20of%20the%20storage%20of%20embryos,%20was%20currently%20underway.%20%5BB%5D'Ticking%20clock'%20%5B/B%5DJosephine%20Quintavalle%20of%20the%20pro-life%20group%20Comment%20on%20Reproductive%20Ethics,%20said%20of%20the%20court's%20ruling:%20%22It's%20an%20inevitable%20judgement,%20but%20a%20very%20sad%20one.%22%20She%20said%20Mr%20Johnston%20had%20%22become%20a%20father%22%20when%20the%20embryos%20were%20created,%20and%20should%20have%20compassion%20for%20Ms%20Evans.%20But%20Michael%20Wilks,%20of%20the%20BMA%20ethics%20committee,%20said:%20%22It's%20the%20right%20verdict,%20but%20a%20terrible%20situation.%22%20However%20Dr%20Wilks%20called%20for%20a%20change%20to%20the%20five%20year%20limit%20for%20embryos%20to%20be%20stored%20after%20one%20partner%20withdraws%20consent%20should%20be%20extended%20so%20there%20was%20less%20of%20a%20%22ticking%20clock%22.%20%5B/DIV%5D%5BDIV%20class=footer%5DStory%20from%20BBC%20NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/4779876.stmPublished:%202006/03/07%2011:36:01%20GMT%C2%A9%20BBC%20MMVI%5B/DIV%5D%5BDIV%20class=footer%5D%20%5B/DIV%5D%5BDIV%20class=footer%5D%20%5B/DIV%5D%5BDIV%20class=footer%5D%5BDIV%20class=o%5D%5Bimg%20height=152%20alt=%22Natallie%20Evans%22%20hspace=0%20src=%22http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41412000/jpg/_41412230_emb_pa_203.jpg%22%20width=203%20border=0%5D%20%5B/DIV%5D%5BDIV%20class=o%5D%5Bimg%20height=1%20alt=%22%22%20hspace=0%20src=%22http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/inline_dashed_line.gif%22%20width=203%20vspace=2%20border=0%5D%5B/DIV%5D%5BDIV%20class=miiib%5D%5B!--%20S%20ILIN%20--%5D%5BA%20class=%22%22%20href=%22http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4779876.stm#%22%5D%5B/A%5D%5BA%20href=%22jvascript:launchAVConsoleStory('4783776')%22%5D%5Bimg%5Dhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/videonews.gif)Ms Evans' reaction[/A] [/DIV][DIV class=footer]
[/DIV]
Well, this case would never happen in the u.s., and if it did, it would be another roe v. wade type of decision.
My take: While embryos are created with both partner's consent, if the couple were to split as this is the case, I think the high court ruled correctly.
Sportsdude wrote:
Well, this case would never happen in the u.s., and if it did, it would be another roe v. wade type of decision. [/div][div]
Actually this has happened in the US and the court forced the father to pay child support . He didn't want to be a father, but was made one against his will.
[/div][div style="font-weight: bold;"]My take: While embryos are created with both partner's consent, if the couple were to split as this is the case, I think the high court ruled correctly.
I do too. Unless she's willing to take complete care of the child or children the man should not be forced to become a father against his will.
[div class="bo"]She said Mr Johnston had "become a father" when the embryos were created, and should have compassion for Ms Evans.
Ummm, NO, he didn't. That's her interpretation, and it's flawed. An embryo is not a child.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume she's right- shouldn't the father have a say in what happens? He says "no, I don't want a child". End of story. If she can insist on making him a father, he should be able to insist she get pregnant and carry a child (or two, or thee) to term.
Can't have it both ways, Ms Evans.
[/div][div class="footer"]
[/div]
Hmmmm, I'm a little mixed on this one. If it were his sperm that were the issue, I would fully support his right to change his mind. Part of me thinks he did in fact give his consent when the process was put in motion. There are too many flaws in this method of bringing children into this world.
One thing I absolutely disagree with, is her notion that it is her RIGHT to have a child. It's not a right, it's a gift. Sometimes nature decides who will get it and who won't.
P.C. wrote:
Hmmmm, I'm a little mixed on this one. If it were his sperm that were the issue, I would fully support his right to change his mind.
Ahhh, but it is his sperm...embryos don't happen without sperm.
Part of me thinks he did in fact give his consent when the process was put in motion. There are too many flaws in this method of bringing children into this world.[/div][div]
Then once the embryos exist, shouldn't he be able to force her to carry as many of them as he wants to term?
[/div][div]One thing I absolutely disagree with, is her notion that it is her RIGHT to have a child.
Agreed. And I also think that no one should be able to make this kind of decision unilatterally. If she has a child from the embryos, he'll be expected (actually forced by the court) to support this child. It seems like a no-win situation for fathers if this kind of unilateral decision making is is allowed.
Not to derail the convo, but this reminds me of the case where (if you're squeemish please don't read any further), a woman gave her boyfriend oral sex and, without his knowledge, transferred his money shot from her mouth to the freezer and then took the chowder down to a fertility clinic to be implanted.
The kicker is that she later demanded child support for the child she had covertly created.
Obviously, this case is a little more complicated, as it sounds like the man gave initial consent for the creation of the embryos. On the other hand, unlike in a typical pregnancy, the woman can't exactly claim that the embryos are "part of her body". Because they were created in a lab, it seems as though the father should have as much say over their fate as the mother.
[SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: italic"]Hmmmm, I'm a little mixed on this one. If it were his sperm that were the issue, I would fully support his right to change his mind. [/SPAN]
Ahhh, but it [SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: italic"]is[/SPAN] his sperm...embryos don't happen without sperm.
Well this is exactly where it gets a little murky for me. He had to have already given his consent to have had his sperm used. If he'd placed his sperm in the 'proper' place.....there would be no option to 'change his mind'. [/DIV] I'm not sure I agree with what she's trying to do on a moral ground, but it makes for an interesting legal argument.
tenkani wrote: [div style="font-style: italic;"]The kicker is that she later demanded child support for the child she had covertly created.[/div]
And I believe she got it, too.
[/div][div]Obviously, this case is a little more complicated, as it sounds like the man gave initial consent for the creation of the embryos.
Yes, but not necessarily the permission to implant and grow them. They were for "backup", so to speak. It's like saying that if you keep a fire extinguisher in your home then it's okay for someone to set fire to it. Not the best analogy, but.....
Because they were created in a lab, it seems as though the father should have as much say over their fate as the mother.[/div][div style="font-style: italic;"]
No one, male or female, should be forced to become a parent. Only men can be put in this position as it stands now. Can you imagine if the father had gone before the court and demanded that the mother be forced to implant the embryos and carry them to term? I don't see much difference in the end, to be honest.
Can you imagine if the father had gone before the court and demanded that the mother be forced to implant the embryos and carry them to term? I don't see much difference in the end, to be honest.
Good point !!
P.C. wrote:
He had to have already given his consent to have had his sperm used.
And so did she.....so, if she doesn't want kids, should he be able to force her to carry them anyway? Or should he be able to hire a surrogate mother to carry them to term and then force the 'real' mother to pay child support?
I've been involved in divorce and custody issues both personally and professionally for about a decade. These things often sound like logic exercises, but they're real-world problems that have no simple solutions. Because of a number of factors including biology, it's very very difficult to find genuinely "fair" solutions to some of these situations. :(
As a divorced dad with custody I'm probably a little more sensitive (or 'touchy', lol) to some of these issues than I might normally be. But either way, I don't feel either parent should have absolute unchallengable power to make a decision to bring a child into the world.
What a tangled web. The one constant that I agree with, is nobody should be forced to be a parent. I think when you muck with mother nature, there will always be issues with cloudly answers. There needs to be some clearer guidelines defining consent and a few million other issues, before one is aloud to go down this path.
I have a friend who is married. He and his wife currently have four children, but none of them are biologically his (step-kids). His wife would like more, but he is not diggin that idea.
Anyway, his wife asked him for some sperm, so that it could be frozen. The way she explained it was that if he were to die, she would be able to use his sperm to make a baby.
On the one hand, you could argue that he should do it, since he will be dead, so why should he mind. But this guy's got a nagging hesitation. The concept of committing to the creation of a child that would be biologically his, yet knowing he will never meet the child, will never have the opportunity to be a real father...well, he finds the whole things disturbing to say the least.
Complicated is right.
tenkani wrote: [div style="font-style: italic;"]Anyway, his wife asked him for some sperm, so that it could be frozen. The way she explained it was that if he were to die, she would be able to use his sperm to make a baby.[/div]
The problem comes if she decides not to wait until he's dead, then he has no control over what happens next. Trust me, I've seen this and worked with fathers who've been in this position. They have no recourse at all. They can't prevent the mother from using the sperm and they can't force her to abort the child. In other words, they're just along for the ride (and to pay for the ride, too).
[/div][div]But this guy's got a nagging hesitation.
And he's right to have it. I'd tell him not to do it under any circumstances, or if he does to have the sperm stored under a court order specifically releasing the sperm only in the event of his death.
I'm not in favour of the choice to bring a child into the world 'fatherless' in such a deliberate manner.[/DIV]I know there is a huge population of single moms and dads out there for a lot of unavoidable reasons, that are great parents.....so it's not a comment AGAINST single parenthood.[/DIV]It's the selective deliberate-ness (?) of 'lab children' that bothers me.
There's just something fundamentally wrong with asking someone to allow his child to be brought into the world after he's dead. It seems kinds selfish to me....for both the child and the father.
P.C. wrote:
It's the selective deliberate-ness (?) of 'lab children' that bothers me.
Yup, me too. I can't pin down exactly what it is, but it just seems wrong in some way.
[div style="font-style: italic;"]There's just something fundamentally wrong with asking someone to allow his child to be brought into the world after he's dead. It seems kinds selfish to me....for both the child and the father.[/div]
Yeah, it's a little creepy, if ya ask me. Deliberately bringing a child into the world with just one parent is a bad move for everyone in my opinion. There are lots of good single parents out there; I like to think I'm one. But the fact is that all things being equal, children do better in every measurable way when they have two parents in their lives.
Thanks guys. I was having trouble putting it into words but you've done it for me.
My friend told his wife no, but she couldn't understand his hesitation.
I think artificial insemination is fantastic for good parents (or potentially good parents) who are biologically unable to have kids. It gets a little sketchy though, when we're talking about people who already have given birth to a bunch of kids and are just having trouble finding someone who wants to be a daddy to more.
I am a firm believer that some people actually become addicted to the process of giving birth. I've heard a few women express the same feeling, although they didn't use the word addiction. Parenting is a lovely thing, if done right. But someone who willingly turns themself into a lifelong brood mare...I don't know, it makes me uncomfortable.
I did the single parent thing too TehBorken.....and there ARE good single parents out there. I was trying to be very careful around that. I bet there's not a very high percentage of them that wouldn't agree that a two parent family would be their first choice. BUT none of them deliberately made the choice to be in that situation.
This is fascinating stuff. Basically all men should be cowering in fear their jizz can be used to procreate with or without their consent whether it be under the guise of a fantastic blow job or an ex-wife.
Men, if you don't want this happening to you, get yourselves to the urologist and either get a vasectomy or an IVD! Also, in your living wills, have it written that you do not want your jizz harvested.
Hiya Academe. Are you still mad at me?[/DIV]Did you block everyone's private messages or just mine? *cry*
tenkani wrote:
Hiya Academe. Are you still mad at me?[/DIV]Did you block everyone's private messages or just mine? *cry*[/DIV] [/DIV]All is good tenkypoo...(http://www.discovervancouver.com/forum/icon/246.gif)
I shut off that "send private message" function for everyone. My apologies if you tried to send some porn my way.
perpetualacademe wrote:
Basically all men should be cowering in fear their jizz can be used toprocreate with or without their consent whether it be under the guiseof a fantastic blow job or an ex-wife.
It sounds funny put that way, but you wouldn't believe the number of guys I've worked with who have had their sperm "re-purposed" and used in ways they never intended. These guys are now fathers paying child support for a child they explicitly did not want and never intended to have.
TehBorken wrote:
It sounds funny put that way, but you wouldn't believe the number of guys I've worked with who have had their sperm "re-purposed" and used in ways they never intended. These guys are now fathers paying child support for a child they [SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: italic"]explicitly [/SPAN]did not want and never intended to have.
[FONT face="Arial Narrow"]This really puts my gender in a bad light.... it is saying to men women are THAT desperate to procreate or keep a man they would do something so stupid and selfish as to swipe semen from a guy without him knowing.... I say guys need to take control of their semen...make it impossible for women to do things like that to you...block the seminal tubes and only unblock when you truly are ready and willing to procreate...also have things in writing legally! [?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /][o:p][/o:p][/FONT]
[SPAN lang=EN-CA style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"][FONT face="Arial Narrow"]If I was President, I'd make it so all men of child-bearing age can get an IVD so there are no more forced or accidental pregnancies, especially those caused by manipulative women...sounds extreme, but if women are like that lady, or the ones Teh was talking about, plus if all states in the USA go the way of South Dakota it might be the easier way...[/FONT][/SPAN]
perpetualacademe wrote:[font style="font-style: italic;" face="Arial Narrow"][/font][font face="Arial Narrow"][/font][span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';" lang="EN-CA"][font face="Arial Narrow"]
I was President, I'd make it so all men of child-bearing age can get an IVD so there are no more forced or accidental pregnancies, especially those caused by manipulative women...
[/font][/span]I've often thought that a controllable or reversible vasectomy 'device' would be the answer. Equip boys with one at age 12 and it would solve a ton of problems. No more accidental teenage pregnancies for one. I'd pay just about anything for my son to be able to have something this.
tenkani wrote:
a woman gave her boyfriend oral sex and, without his knowledge, transferred his money shot from her mouth to the freezer and then took the chowder down to a fertility clinic to be implanted.
I think this one's an urban legend, because the temperature of an ordinary household freezer will not keep sperm in a re-usable state. It does not cool them fast enough and corrupts the "body" part of the sperm.
And even if she'd happened to have a medical-grade freezing unit in her kitchen, wouldn't it have been smarter just to take the shot no farther than her bathroom and... er, deposit it in the typical place herself?
When tenkani brought up that story maybe she took the sperm in her mouth and then inserted it in her vulva. You never know. Senator Bill Frist is a doctor and he thinks you can get pregnant from tears.
I say nothing.
I was thinking that a situation like that would be equivilant of a woman being pregnant as the result of rape......would it not ? That's the only way a woman can GET pregnant against her will. So if a MAN is forced (tricked) into fatherhood, would that not be an interesting angle for a legal battle ?
P.C. wrote:
[div style="font-style: italic;"]So if a MAN is forced (tricked) into fatherhood, would that not be an interesting angle for a legal battle ?[/div]
No, the courts don't care about this at all. They really don't, and it's been pushed through the courts more than once. The courts refuse to grant any credence to the idea that a man's pserm can be "stolen", no matter what the circumstances. It sounds crazy, but this is something I have a fair amount of experience wiith. It *is* rape in every sense of the word, but as we all know (and as the courts continue to insist) a man can't be "raped".
Once the child is on the way, the father has no rights to speak of. He can't ask or insist the mother do or not do anything, he can be excluded from obtaining any medical information about the child, etc etc. It's actually a lot worse than that, but I don't want to start a huge firestorm here. Suffice it to say that there is no such thng as "reproductive rights for men". Zero, zip, zilch, nada.
Well perhaps someone will set a precedent. Surely there is a lawyer out there that can argue that line and win. When the choice to reproduce 'voluntarily' is removed......it's rape.......regardless of gender. With all the problems that will come with new technology in this area, some NEW laws will have to be put in place.
P.C. wrote:
Well perhaps someone will set a precedent.
Maybe someday, but don't hold your breath. I personally doubt it will ever happen.
Surely there is a lawyer out there that can argue that line and win.
Yes, in theory. It's been tried repeatedly and the courts have discounted it each and every time. There was a female baby-sitter that raped the little boy she was supposed to be watching. She got pregnant. The court awarded her child support from the kid she raped. With bias like that, I doubt men will ever see any real movement in the idea of male reproductive rights.
When the choice to reproduce 'voluntarily' is removed......it's rape.......regardless of gender.
Unless you're a guy. (//forums/richedit/smileys/Sad/11.gif)
That's insanely ridiculous. [img style="CURSOR: pointer" onclick=url(this.src); src="http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/more/bigs/c003.gif" border=0]
It's not an urban myth. Here's an article from the Canadian Children's Rights Council on a court case that stemmed from the initial child support dispute.
The woman is a doctor, so presumably she knew how to properly store the sperm. Dry ice? Who knows...
[A href="http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/AP_Man_can_sue_sperm_theft_distress_24FEB05.htm"]http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/AP_Man_can_sue_sperm_theft_distress_24FEB05.htm[/A] [A href="http://funreports.com/2005/03/04/58528.html"]http://funreports.com/2005/03/04/58528.html[/A]
My favorite part...[/DIV] [/DIV]But the judges agreed with the lower court's decision to dismiss fraud and theft claims against Irons.
They agreed with Irons' lawyers that she didn't steal the sperm. [/DIV] [/DIV]She asserts that when plaintiff 'delivered' his sperm, it was a gift -- an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee," the decision said. "There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request."
"Phillips alleges that he and Irons, who practices internal medicine, never had intercourse during their four-month affair, although they did have oral sex three times."
[/DIV] [/DIV]He probly was so drunk he passed out during sex.
Well, in the articles I've read on the matter, it doesn't sound like Irons (the woman) has denied using the sperm from oral sex to create a baby. Her lawyer's statement simply states that the sperm was a gift.
Here's another article that I found pretty interesting...[/DIV][A href="http://www.glennsacks.com/sperm_theft_ruling.htm"]http://www.glennsacks.com/sperm_theft_ruling.htm[/A] [SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial"]Courts have ruled that boys who were statutorily raped by older women must pay child support. Courts have ruled that when a woman has taken the semen from a condom a man used for sex with a different woman and has inserted it in herself, the man must still pay child support. Courts have ruled that when a woman has concealed her pregnancy (denying the man the right to be a father) and then sued for child support a decade later, the man must still pay child support. Courts have ruled that when a woman has deceived her husband into believing that her baby is his child, he must still pay child support. Few if any men are relieved of child support obligations due to the circumstances of the pregnancy, no matter how bizarre or unjust.[/SPAN]
tenkani wrote:
Well, in the articles I've read on the matter, it doesn't sound like Irons (the woman) has denied using the sperm from oral sex to create a baby. Her lawyer's statement simply states that the sperm was a gift.
That's exactly what he argued, and because of that she was free to do with it whatever she wanted. Amazing.
Glenn Sacks has some very interesting stuff on his site. I've spoken with him on a couple of occasions.
P.C. wrote:
That's insanely ridiculous. [img style="cursor: pointer;" onclick="url(this.src);" src="http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/more/bigs/c003.gif[/img]
Welcome to my world. :(
No, I'm not a victim of anything like this, but in connection with my parenting advocacy group I've worked with at dozens of men in the last few years who have been.
I honestly had no idea things were this bad. The idea that someone can steal one of my used condoms to impregnate themselves and then demand child support is mind boggling.
I don't necessarily agree that it's exactly the same as rape (no penetration), but it's certainly a HUGE violation of person.
I'm sure the folks who support these laws consider themselves to be fighting for the rights of the children. Their perspective is likely that regardless of the actions of the parents, the child should not suffer. I understand the sentiment, but the potential for abuse is obviously too great.
Glenn seems like a cool dude from what I've read.
tenkani wrote:
I honestly had no idea things were this bad. The idea that someone can steal one of my used condoms to impregnate themselves and then demand child support is mind boggling.
Most people will refuse to believe that this is the case, or that it ever happens at all. They simply won't believe you, and if you show them proof they'll respond by saying that it's a "one in a million case". It's a lot more common than most people are willing to believe. All you have to do is go sit in Family Court for one week and you'll see that, in fact, it happens almost every day.
Simple answer to the dilema. Never bed a chick that says 'her clock is ticking'
Simpler answer; only have sex with other men. Although ass pregnancy does occur (Carrot Top being the most recognizable product of such a freak occurance), it is nearly unheard of.
If the thought of hair man ass doesn't do it for you, just ask him to wear lingerie. Works for me!!
(http://www.motleycrow.com/ImageHost/meet_1.jpg)
sorry tenkani I don't swing that way.
I forgive you.[/DIV]Maybe you'll reconsider after somebody hijacks your sperm and makes a sportsdude jr (http://discoverseattle.net/forums/richedit/smileys/Teasing/5.gif)
I don't necessarily agree that it's exactly the same as rape (no penetration), but it's certainly a HUGE violation of person.[/DIV] [/DIV]I'm thinking more in terms of psycological and emotional impact and more specifically a woman becoming pregnant as a result of rape. I think the comparison is very real.
Both are faced with an unwanted pregnancy as a result of actions that were against their will. Both have had their choice to not procreate deliberately taken from them. No decision of their own was made to become a parent.
Agree 100%. Well said.
P.C. wrote:
I'm thinking more in terms of psycological and emotion impact and more specifically a woman [strong style="font-style: italic;"]becoming pregnant as a result of rape[/b]. I think the comparison is very real. [/div]
[div]You're one of the few women I know who understand this and who didn't immediately dismiss it out of hand. Bravo to you, P.C.!
Talk about deja vu! The episode of Scrubs on right now is talking about Carla sperm-jacking! Men...be very careful....very, very careful where you aim your jizz....