Her embryos or his?

[trumptman]

Webster, Texas — AFTER two years of infertility treatments — from temperature monitoring and artificial inseminations to hormone injections and laparoscopic surgery — Augusta Roman felt her last, best hope for bearing a child was only hours away. Her doctor had retrieved 13 eggs from her ovaries, and six had been fertilized with the sperm of her husband, Randy Roman.

Ten hours before the embryos were to be implanted in Augusta's womb, Randy emerged from their study and broke unfathomable news: Despite all she had endured, he couldn't go through with it.

The doctor's call announcing the creation of the embryos had crystallized nagging doubts about their marriage that he had harbored for years. He insisted on canceling the procedure and freezing the embryos while they attempted counseling to work through their differences.

"It was like somebody had just squeezed the life out of me," Augusta recalled. "My heart was heavy like it was going to bust."

Counseling failed, and in August 2003, 16 months after the canceled embryo transfer, the couple mediated the dissolution of their six-year marriage. She got the house in this Houston suburb, near NASA's Johnson Space Center, and most of the furnishings. He got the 32-inch Sony TV, a futon and dinette set, and the 1998 Honda Civic.

They could not agree, however, on the disposition of one piece of community property — the three embryos of the original six that had survived the freezing process.

LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-embryo30may30,1,7141318.story)

We are often told that biology has created the inequity that exists with men and women regarding reproductive rights. Her body, her choice and her privacy. Since the man does not have anything in him that is affecting his body, he gets no say. Science and abortion created from it is merely an attempt to equalize the sexes with regard to reproductive rights.

Now we can see this can and should go both ways. First in this instance, the terms related to not continuing the relationship or death were clearly outlined. Second, it isn't her body and thus her choice. Science has created the embryos outside of her body and as such, he should have his equal say in terminating the embryos.

Nick

[Northgate]

Hers.

[franksargent]

Now that's eight.

Two more and I'll have to start using my toes.

:\

[groverat]

Definitely hers. She will only produce a certain number of eggs for a very short amount of time. He will be able to produce semen essentially until he is dead.

[BR]

The ONLY way I would say that she should be allowed to keep it at this point is if the man could legally not be responsible at all for the children produced from it. She knows going in that he doesn't support it. She should not be able to get a single red cent from him.

[Northgate]

The ONLY way I would say that she should be allowed to keep it at this point is if the man could legally not be responsible at all for the children produced from it. She knows going in that he doesn't support it. She should not be able to get a single red cent from him.

Agreed. A father should have the right to legally protest a pregnancy. It would help prevent women from committing fraud or entrapment against unexpectant fathers. There should be limits, though (a father can't file paperwork the day before the delivery) and there should be an appeals process.

If the woman does not believe in abortion then she should have to give the child up for adoption. If she chooses to keep against the father's wishes then she has the right to do so, but without financial compensation.

This would create more stress on the courts. But that's what they're there for. Big business has no qualms with over stressing the court system. It's about time the court work for civil purposes like this.

Some liberal I am, eh?

[groverat]

How can a man who goes through a process of fertilizing a woman's eggs be considered "unexpectant". I have less sympathy for this guy than for a one-night-stand guy who turns up a father. The whole purpose of the infertility treatments was pregnancy.

[Flounder]

Obviously a very tricky issue with no perfect answers. I would say hers, however, due to the afformentioned limited supply of eggs.

I would also tend to agree that he should not have to be legally responsible for any resulting children (since clearly he does not want them and they aren't implanted).

Although if you wanted to look at it from a religious conservative perspective, since he consented to donate his sperm which he knew would result in embryos (and for the religious conservative that means life has already begun and should be cherished and protected at all costs) well then there's an argument that he does in fact have a financial responsibility as he willingly created six lives.

[trumptman]

Definitely hers. She will only produce a certain number of eggs for a very short amount of time. He will be able to produce semen essentially until he is dead.

Is there a right to have kids in the Constitution of which I was not aware?

Are we all going to be mandatory sperm donors for women who desire to conceive?

The ONLY way I would say that she should be allowed to keep it at this point is if the man could legally not be responsible at all for the children produced from it. She knows going in that he doesn't support it. She should not be able to get a single red cent from him.

She can't keep it. It isn't hers. It is half his and he may do with his half as he desires. Better still the contract stipulated that outcome.

Agreed. A father should have the right to legally protest a pregnancy. It would help prevent women from committing fraud or entrapment against unexpectant fathers. There should be limits, though (a father can't file paperwork the day before the delivery) and there should be an appeals process.

If the woman does not believe in abortion then she should have to give the child up for adoption. If she chooses to keep against the father's wishes then she has the right to do so, but without financial compensation.

This would create more stress on the courts. But that's what they're there for. Big business has no qualms with over stressing the court system. It's about time the court work for civil purposes like this.

Some liberal I am, eh?

We are in agreement here, but I'm going to request a few insults, derogatory comments and ad-homs just to insure I feel comfortable with your post.:lol:

How can a man who goes through a process of fertilizing a woman's eggs be considered "unexpectant". I have less sympathy for this guy than for a one-night-stand guy who turns up a father. The whole purpose of the infertility treatments was pregnancy.

I don't think they are claiming he was an unexpectant father. I think the legal ground lays where I noted, that since the property is half his and since it does not require harm to her body to lay claim to and dispose of it, he is allowed to exercise his rights.

Obviously the man who has sex and thus the one night stand cannot control what has happened to the product of the intercourse without imposing some cost on the woman and her body. Basically it amounts to possession determining the law.

Here, she is not in possession, he should be able to exercise his rights.

Nick

[BR]

How can a man who goes through a process of fertilizing a woman's eggs be considered "unexpectant". I have less sympathy for this guy than for a one-night-stand guy who turns up a father. The whole purpose of the infertility treatments was pregnancy.

The eggs are on ice. The divorce is processed. If the woman decides to implant them now, it's solely her responsibility.

[BR]

Agreed. A father should have the right to legally protest a pregnancy. It would help prevent women from committing fraud or entrapment against unexpectant fathers. There should be limits, though (a father can't file paperwork the day before the delivery) and there should be an appeals process.

If the woman does not believe in abortion then she should have to give the child up for adoption. If she chooses to keep against the father's wishes then she has the right to do so, but without financial compensation.

This would create more stress on the courts. But that's what they're there for. Big business has no qualms with over stressing the court system. It's about time the court work for civil purposes like this.

Some liberal I am, eh?

We are in 100% agreement on this one.

[groverat]

trumptman:

Is there a right to have kids in the Constitution of which I was not aware?

The Constitution is not an enumeration of rights.

Are we all going to be mandatory sperm donors for women who desire to conceive?

Has anyone promoted or even discussed such an idea?

Here, she is not in possession, he should be able to exercise his rights.

What rights would he be exercising (and according to your blithely fatuous question, is that right in the Constitution?)?


BR:

The eggs are on ice. The divorce is processed. If the woman decides to implant them now, it's solely her responsibility.

You get into a moral wishy-washy area here. For all intents and purposes, the children are already conceived, they already exist, even if just on ice. In my mind he is responsible for them, whether they remain in stasis or they are brought to term.

[@_@ Artman]

http://individual.utoronto.ca/roninkengo/pictures/maury.jpg

[Frank777]

We live in a truly bizarre period of human history.

[@_@ Artman]

We live in a truly bizarre period of human history.

What alcoholics refer to as a "Moment of Clarity". :smokey:

[Jubelum]

What alcoholics refer to as a "Moment of Clarity". :smokey:

http://msn.mess.be/data/media/142/Jules_TastyBurger.jpg

:lol: Golden.

[trumptman]

trumptman:
The Constitution is not an enumeration of rights.


I include the Bill of Rights as part of the Constitution. You are welcome to toss the Bill of Rights into whatever mental category you prefer, but you know that is what is being discussed.

Has anyone promoted or even discussed such an idea?

What other reason would you have for not giving him control of his own genetic material? By what right do you give the woman control over his genetic material?

He is still alive. They both signed a document that clearly detailed what would happen to the eggs in the event of divorce. They are divorced. She should live by the terms of the contract. He has lived up to the terms and suddenly deserves to lose control of his genetic material because what... she a woman and she want a baby?!?

What rights would he be exercising (and according to your blithely fatuous question, is that right in the Constitution?)?


First there are property rights. The 14th amendment demands equal protection under law and states that a person shall not be deprived of life, liberty or property. He clearly would not be afford equal protection if he could have his genetic material taken under objection and by voiding the agreed upon provisions of their contract. Likewise if he can have current contracts voided dealing with only the embryos, who is to say that future considerations cannot be granted related to child rearing and support?

Reproduction is not something we can be forced to do. There is nothing related to her body and control of it that gains or grants her control of his sperm in this instance. The fact that future considerations related to the taking of it could deny him his income, etc. are all liberty considerations.

Nick

[trumptman]

It's not as simple as that.

She's running out of reproductive years. As it stands she only has a slim chance of successfully carrying to term one of the implanted embryos-- and time is running out. If they enforce the contract by destroying the embryos, she might never have as good a chance as she has now to have children. That's a fairness question. Contracts could be avoided in certain situations on equitable grounds.

She still has the possibility of donor eggs, of adopting, etc.

Shawn, this is his genetic property. This would be like me compelling you to donate your kidney to me. It may not be fair that you have two functioning, and I have none, but I cannot force you to give me one.

As the saying goes, it takes two to tango. The fact that she did not find a willing and committed second does not mean the courts can compel this man to adopt that role with his genetic material.

My body, my choice. It goes both ways.

Nick

[soulcrusher]

We are in 100% agreement on this one.

So am I.

[soulcrusher]

On a related note I still do not get the "it's her body" when arguing for abortion. Just like I do not get "it's life" when arguing against it.

What is an individual human being and what is part of a woman's body are artificial boundaries. Both arguments seem to depend on some arbitrary definition as opposed to some clear-cut distinction.

[groverat]

trumptman:

I include the Bill of Rights as part of the Constitution. You are welcome to toss the Bill of Rights into whatever mental category you prefer, but you know that is what is being discussed.

The Bill of Rights is not even an enumeration of rights. It merely lists those things which the government is not allowed to infringe upon.

What other reason would you have for not giving him control of his own genetic material?

He does have control. He exercised his control and created a new human with a whole new genetic code.

They both signed a document that clearly detailed what would happen to the eggs in the event of divorce. They are divorced. She should live by the terms of the contract.

I am not particularly concerned with the contract, as I am not the judge in the case. The question was asked more generally and I am addressing it more generally.

First there are property rights.

Is a child one's property?

Reproduction is not something we can be forced to do.

As far as I know, he willingly created the new humans.

[tonton]

We need more laws to protect people like Nick from those nasty women who want things. That nast bitch ex-wife of his (I'm sure judging from his contribution to this board that their split had absolutely nothing to do with his own personality), the nasty bitch woman teachers he works with...

The only reason this man would refuse to allow his ex-wife the possession of these embryos to raise as her own children, assumning she signs a clause stating that he is in no way financially responsible, is if he's being vindictive. Nick likes to stick up for the vindictive man, because he is one.

[BR]

Regardless of your opinion of Trumpetman, tonton, the rights of men with regard to marriage and children are a serious issue.

[trumptman]

trumptman:

The Bill of Rights is not even an enumeration of rights. It merely lists those things which the government is not allowed to infringe upon.

I'll leave you and your little word fetish alone.


He does have control. He exercised his control and created a new human with a whole new genetic code.

The courts do not see the embryo as a human. If they did then abortion would be illegal. By the rulings of the courts, this is no different than a wart.

I am not particularly concerned with the contract, as I am not the judge in the case. The question was asked more generally and I am addressing it more generally.

Make sure you share the sun tea.

Is a child one's property?

This is not a child. If the court were to find that it is a child, Roe v. Wade would be history as would any and all abortions.

As far as I know, he willingly created the new humans.

He did go along with creating the embryos. However he also agreed due to the terms of the contracts signed between the two of them that if they were divorced, the embryos would be destroyed. He was willing with those terms and is unwilling outside of those terms.

We need more laws to protect people like Nick from those nasty women who want things. That nast bitch ex-wife of his (I'm sure judging from his contribution to this board that their split had absolutely nothing to do with his own personality), the nasty bitch woman teachers he works with...

The only reason this man would refuse to allow his ex-wife the possession of these embryos to raise as her own children, assumning she signs a clause stating that he is in no way financially responsible, is if he's being vindictive. Nick likes to stick up for the vindictive man, because he is one.

First, ad-hom. Second, you've alleged this often. I've been happily married, never once divorced nor involved in any custody hearings or anything of that nature in my life. As I've stated repeatedly though, I see a lot of credit reports via potential renters, I have friends and family that have been through it.

Stranger still Tonton, I know you do have an ex and a child between you two. Care to share the terms you had to agree to since you make so many allegations? I'd love to see you in California coughing up 50% of your take home pay for six days a month of "parenting" or maybe visitation at an approved center and watch you hold your tongue about such an arrangement. Worse still, I'd love to watch your six days be denied by the vengeful ex and then have someone accuse you of hating all women if you dare to stand against such treatment for yourself or anyone else.

Nick

[groverat]

trumptman:

You might see it as a "word fetish", but it is actually an extremely important distinction and it must be understood before understanding what government is supposed to be.

The courts do not see the embryo as a human.

Court opinions change. And as I already said, I am addressing the more general question and offering my opinion on it. You seem to be mixing the two, and I would ask you to consider whether or not your moral considerations have taken a backseat to your more temporal considerations.

He did go along with creating the embryos. However he also agreed due to the terms of the contracts signed between the two of them that if they were divorced, the embryos would be destroyed.

Should it be legal for two people to agree, by contract, to end the life of a third party?

tonton:

Chill on the ad-hominem.
As tempting as it is to Internet-psychoanalyze someone who posts incessantly about how women rule over men and how men are victims of subjugation and horrors, it simply cannot be done constructively. Best to stick to attacking the idea (if it needs attacking) or agreeing with the idea (if it calls for agreement).

[trumptman]

trumptman:

You might see it as a "word fetish", but it is actually an extremely important distinction and it must be understood before understanding what government is supposed to be.

Not to be rude grove, but you appear to want it both ways. You seek to declare that it is very important to understand certain governmental distinctions, but then address the rest of the questions in a more generalized way. I'm not opposed to letting you do that. I'm just noting that it isn't consistent.

Court opinions change. And as I already said, I am addressing the more general question and offering my opinion on it. You seem to be mixing the two, and I would ask you to consider whether or not your moral considerations have taken a backseat to your more temporal considerations.

I think even as a general question you haven't fully considered the matter. If this embryo is human. It puts an end to abortion. It puts an end to embryonic stem cell research. It likely puts a crimp in the whole business of artificial reproduction in the first place because, as noted in this article, it works mostly from a position of excess. This woman's treatment yielded six eggs which after freezing reduced down to three, and then after implanting all three, they will hope that one becomes viable. What about the thousands for frozen embryos mentioned in the article? Do they have rights? Are they persons?

Should it be legal for two people to agree, by contract, to end the life of a third party?

When the two parties agreed, it was with a contractual stipulation that included the understanding that it was not the life of a third party, otherwise it would have been illegal to create the third party, including excessive third parties, in the first place.

By your very same reasoning, can you buy, sell, donate, or award as property people? All these things occur now within the reproductive realm. Her case was not awarded as custody, it was awarded as property. It can't be both ways. It can't be illegal to end the embryo lives because they are people, but then legal to award them as property to the woman.

Nick

[groverat]

trumptman:

Not to be rude grove, but you appear to want it both ways. You seek to declare that it is very important to understand certain governmental distinctions, but then address the rest of the questions in a more generalized way. I'm not opposed to letting you do that. I'm just noting that it isn't consistent.

It is not about "certain governmental distinctions", but the nature of law in the United States. The Constitution does not enumerate rights (and it is quite explicit about this). The right of the individual is assumed and the Constitution outlines what government is supposed to do and what it cannot do. There is nothing specific about this, it is simply clearing up the nature of the Constitution, which you seemed to not understand when you asked whether or not there was a certain right "in the Constitution".

Once you understand what the Constitution is (i.e. - not a list of individual rights), then these questions become more clear.

If this embryo is human. It puts an end to abortion. It puts an end to embryonic stem cell research.

It only puts an end to those things if the rights of that human outweigh the rights of mothers to choose to remain pregnant or, in the case of stem cell research, the right of the masses to benefit from taking that life via scientific study and advancement. It "puts an end" to nothing, it merely changes some of the rhetoric involved in the question.

What about the thousands for frozen embryos mentioned in the article? Do they have rights? Are they persons?

They certainly are humans with unique genetic codes. Whether or not that puts them in equal legal status with other humans is another question.

So the question here is whether or not the father has the right to stop that child from being brought to term. I do not think the father, in this case, should have that right. In a moral sense, that should be the decision of the mother, who is tasked with actually carrying the child to term.

When the two parties agreed, it was with a contractual stipulation that included the understanding that it was not the life of a third party, otherwise it would have been illegal to create the third party, including excessive third parties, in the first place.

I did not ask what "was", I asked what "should be". As I have said repeatedly, I am discussing the general issue, not this specific case.

[trumptman]

trumptman:



It is not about "certain governmental distinctions", but the nature of law in the United States. The Constitution does not enumerate rights (and it is quite explicit about this). The right of the individual is assumed and the Constitution outlines what government is supposed to do and what it cannot do. There is nothing specific about this, it is simply clearing up the nature of the Constitution, which you seemed to not understand when you asked whether or not there was a certain right "in the Constitution".

Once you understand what the Constitution is (i.e. - not a list of individual rights), then these questions become more clear.

We will have to disagree on this because the Bill of Rights does task the Federal Government with protection of certain rights. It may leave other rights to the states of individual, but it is tasked with protecting and must avoid infringing on certain rights.

It only puts an end to those things if the rights of that human outweigh the rights of mothers to choose to remain pregnant or, in the case of stem cell research, the right of the masses to benefit from taking that life via scientific study and advancement. It "puts an end" to nothing, it merely changes some of the rhetoric involved in the question.


I disagree. You seem to assign the right, then weigh it against certain factors to see if the awarded right is allowed to be exercised or not. If the mother wants the embryos implanted, it is human. If the both want it frozen and stored, it is not. If people want the embryos to cure their Alzheimer's, it isn't human, if they want to cuddle and sent them to kindergarten, it is human.

That isn't changing the rhetoric. It is arbitrarily assigning rights to a third party based of what another party desires.

Let me give you a hypothetical, if the father wanted these embryos to implant into his sterile new girlfriend, and the mother objected, would you award him the embryos? Would they have to split the embryos? What would happen then? Are the embryos awarded because she has a womb, because she simply desires them, by what basis does this designation of cells continue to change? If she wanted the cells to be grown into a culture to help give her a new kidney (as may be the case in the future) could she order them put to use for that even though they are an independent third party in your view?

It isn't just rhetoric that changes. You seem to grant the woman, for no known reason really, the right to determine or the legal status of the eggs based not on what the eggs actually are, but on nothing more than her desire for them. Now I'll grant that we do award this ability when they are in her body because her own health outweighs the rights of the eggs, but there is no consideration like that here so I ask on what basis do you award or give it?

They certainly are humans with unique genetic codes. Whether or not that puts them in equal legal status with other humans is another question.

So the question here is whether or not the father has the right to stop that child from being brought to term. I do not think the father, in this case, should have that right. In a moral sense, that should be the decision of the mother, who is tasked with actually carrying the child to term.

I can understand your view because it is what we currently apply when mother and father have sex and conceive. What I think you fail to consider is that when both parties are treated unequally there, it is due to the consideration of the mother having to risk her own health and body to exercise the rights of the father. We have no such consideration here to award unequal rights.

Again, let me flip the question around. If these eggs are humans with unique genetic codes, created solely for the purpose of having a child and agreed to by both parties beforehand that this was their intended purpose, and it was the mother backing out, would you support a decision by the court where the mother is legally compelled to implant and bring the children to term with her body?

I did not ask what "was", I asked what "should be". As I have said repeatedly, I am discussing the general issue, not this specific case.

Then I will trust you will entertain my hypotheticals that flush out a bit more of the reasoning in this generalized discussion.

Nick

[groverat]

trumptman:

Let me give you a hypothetical, if the father wanted these embryos to implant into his sterile new girlfriend, and the mother objected, would you award him the embryos?

No, I would not.
If the father wanted them so he could implant them into himself and carry the child to term, I would allow that.

Would they have to split the embryos?

I might see that as an equitable, yet asinine, compromise. I would probably then resign the bench in disgust at our world and its pathetic, whimpering sad-sack worthless humans that walk around in it, so self-absorbed and petty.

Are the embryos awarded because she has a womb, because she simply desires them, by what basis does this designation of cells continue to change?

Her having a womb (and the father not having a womb) is a very important consideration, yes, since it is within a womb that the physical development will have to occur.

If she wanted the cells to be grown into a culture to help give her a new kidney (as may be the case in the future) could she order them put to use for that even though they are an independent third party in your view?

Only if the father agrees. If the father disagrees then the little people should remain in stasis.

It isn't just rhetoric that changes. You seem to grant the woman, for no known reason really, the right to determine or the legal status of the eggs based not on what the eggs actually are, but on nothing more than her desire for them.

She is capable of bringing them to term, the father is not. Therefore, the mother is capable of bringing the child to term, and in that way better its life. The father, however, is capable of nothing comparable.

You should be less emotional about the issues and approach them from a rational standpoint. You pout way too much.

What I think you fail to consider is that when both parties are treated unequally there, it is due to the consideration of the mother having to risk her own health and body to exercise the rights of the father. We have no such consideration here to award unequal rights.

I do not think that "equal" treatment is possible with regard to fathers and mothers in these cases, because the situations are physically unequal.

If these eggs are humans with unique genetic codes, created solely for the purpose of having a child and agreed to by both parties beforehand that this was their intended purpose, and it was the mother backing out, would you support a decision by the court where the mother is legally compelled to implant and bring the children to term with her body?

Of course not.

[Frank777]

This would make for an interesting abortion thread. I had no idea Grove was a pro-lifer. ;)

[audiopollution]

This would make for an interesting abortion thread. I had no idea Grove was a pro-lifer. ;)

No it wouldn't, as the thread's not about abortion.

Just sayin', before it swerves in that direction by some strange force emanating from your post.

[groverat]

I am certainly pro-choice. I simply think that abortion is the immoral taking of a human life. I also think embryonic stem cell research is the immoral taking of a human life. However, those are two violations of my personal morality that I strongly promote the legality of. I am comfortable with a universe that is not ordered perfectly on my own perceptions of it.

[southside grabowski]

This is why those scientists should stop fiddling.

[groverat]

Yes, let's just rewind to simpler times, when women were chattle and scientists were burned alive.

GLORY GLORY HALLELUJAH!

[southside grabowski]

I am certainly pro-choice. I simply think that abortion is the immoral taking of a human life. I also think embryonic stem cell research is the immoral taking of a human life. However, those are two violations of my personal morality that I strongly promote the legality of. I am comfortable with a universe that is not ordered perfectly on my own perceptions of it.

Shouldn't people fight for what they believe in? I think rape is wrong. I would never do it. If I come across a rape, I will indeed try to intervene. A man must stand for something. Tolerance of morally equivalent ideas is right. Tolerance of wrongs is not acceptable.

[trumptman]

trumptman:

No, I would not.
If the father wanted them so he could implant them into himself and carry the child to term, I would allow that.

I find this reasoning very strange. She can do what she wants with his genetic material, even against his wishes as long as it concerns creating a child, but the reverse is not true? Obviously he doesn't have a womb, but then she doesn't have sperm. She is allowed to use the law to commandeer his sperm, but he cannot do the reverse with her eggs and another womb? Both would be using the law to gain that which they do not physically have. Why do you excuse the woman?

I might see that as an equitable, yet asinine, compromise. I would probably then resign the bench in disgust at our world and its pathetic, whimpering sad-sack worthless humans that walk around in it, so self-absorbed and petty.

Self-absorbed and petty is what this woman is demonstrating though. There are donor eggs. There are thousands of children that need a good parent in terms of adoption. Somehow she can't get by unless it is her egg?!?

Her having a womb (and the father not having a womb) is a very important consideration, yes, since it is within a womb that the physical development will have to occur.

Except the father does not want the physical development to occur. Normally he couldn't prevent this because the eggs would be in her and it would be her body and thus her right. That has no bearing here. Additionally in this instance he actually didn't have sex with her, didn't impregnate her, and fully clarified the use of his sperm contractually before consenting to have it used.

As a man, that is really about as many bases as you can cover. I mean really, beyond her having a womb and wanting his sperm, doesn't he get any rights? He did everything he should and yet you would still give the embryos to her. Out of what.. pity, protectionism, what?

Only if the father agrees. If the father disagrees then the little people should remain in stasis.

Shouldn't that be the case here then? The father has said destroyed or remain frozen. He does not want them implanted and the child that would result. Also I have a pretty hard time reconciling the reasoning here. You would give them to her become pregnant, but refuse them to her in an instance where it would either save her life or dramatically improve the quality of it regarding health. (Kidney) How do you resolve the two?

She is capable of bringing them to term, the father is not. Therefore, the mother is capable of bringing the child to term, and in that way better its life. The father, however, is capable of nothing comparable.

Assuming they survive the odds and one goes full term, then you might be right. What about the existing rights and quality of life of the father? As I noted, he will always have the prospect of this child seeking to reenter his life, the possibility that the mother could attempt to overturn agreements related to child support as she has already overturned the agreement regarding the embryos. Doesn't the man ever get any rights in this matter?

I know it upsets you when I say, isn't he anything more than a sperm donor, but I haven't seen any instance where he gets any legal rights. You've given the woman and the embryo more rights than him at this stage I ask you, what rights does he have? Again, he covered all his legal bases. He did everything he ought to do. Doesn't he get any rights?

You should be less emotional about the issues and approach them from a rational standpoint. You pout way too much.

You've done a good job up to this point with addressing the text and not attempting to assess my (claimed) emotional state, or deal with whatever tone you read into my words. Please continue doing that because this has been a good discussion.

I do not think that "equal" treatment is possible with regard to fathers and mothers in these cases, because the situations are physically unequal.

That is true when having to deal with the woman's body. However because of science, we are dealing with this outside the woman's body. Both contributed the same number of genes. There should also be some biological consideration that without his sperm, the embryos would not exist. I do agree with you that if the embryos had been implanted, of if this was a regular pregnancy, there would be an inability to treat them equally due to the concerns of her health. However that is not the case here and the potential outcome for the embryo should not override the rights of the father.

Of course not.

Why not? This seems to be the same reasoning in reverse. If she underwent all these treatments in order to bring about the embryos, haven't her rights been compromised at some point?

Again, you wouldn't award him the embryos to use in a surrogate either so he just has no rights of any sort.

One last hypothetical...if the eggs and sperm weren't put together yet, but all the prior variables were in place, he had given it with contractual consent, etc. would you award her the sperm to unite with the egg against the wishes of the man? For the purposes of this hypothetical she would obviously have petitioned and thus want only his sperm. We know that she could get donor sperm, but she could also go get a donor egg at this point. She clearly wants known genetics going into her womb. So would you award it if it were sitting frozen at the facility, labeled there for this purpose, but had not yet been combined with her eggs?

Nick

[groverat]

southside grabowski:

I believe that abortion is immoral and I believe that people should be allowed to do certain immoral things (so long as they do not impinge upon the rights of others). This should not be difficult to understand.

You do this yourself, or else you would campaign for blasphemers to be legally stoned to death with rocks. Yet you do not, why is this?

trumptman:

It is impossible to discuss something with someone without noting their tone. In this case, your pestering repetition of (metaphorically) high-pitched questions is irritating. Questions are fine, but there is no need for this "Well what do you think!? HUH!? HUH?! WHAT THEN!?" foolishness. I simply ask you to tone it down and stop the fucking whining. ("Doesn't he get any rights!?" WAH WAH WAH!)

She can do what she wants with his genetic material, even against his wishes as long as it concerns creating a child, but the reverse is not true?

Well you seem to have forgotten that the resulting child (even in this extremely early stage) is no longer "his genetic material", but a new human with a new genetic code. I know you understand enough human biology to understand that your characterization of a fertilized embryo as someone else's "genetic material" is a massive logical fallacy.

Except the father does not want the physical development to occur.

He should have considered that before fertilizing an egg with his semen, and in the process creating a genetically-separate human being. Tough shit.

I mean really, beyond her having a womb and wanting his sperm, doesn't he get any rights?

If this were a case of his frozen sperm it would be very different. She should have no moral right to use his frozen sperm against his wishes. Sadly, that is not the topic in discussion.

You would give them to her become pregnant, but refuse them to her in an instance where it would either save her life or dramatically improve the quality of it regarding health. (Kidney) How do you resolve the two?

The interests of the child are the consideration.
- Implantation in the mother serves the interests of the child (development), therefore that should be allowed. (This is less convincing in the case of the child being developed inside daddy's new girlfriend, because daddy's new girlfriend has no real connection to that child.)
- In the case of stem cells, the destruction of that child serves the interest of one (or both) parents, and therefore should require the consent of all parents who are able to consent.

However that is not the case here and the potential outcome for the embryo should not override the rights of the father.

What rights of the father are even in consideration here? I have asked this before and I think it needs to be answered. The child is not his "property" and he already reproduced when his sperm fertilized the egg.

Why not? This seems to be the same reasoning in reverse. If she underwent all these treatments in order to bring about the embryos, haven't her rights been compromised at some point?

Bringing a child to term has tremendous impact on the mother's body and absolutely no impact on the father's. That one is pretty simple.

Again, you wouldn't award him the embryos to use in a surrogate either so he just has no rights of any sort.

He has some, but not as many as the mother. If you've got a problem with that, go argue with god about his design.

One last hypothetical...if the eggs and sperm weren't put together yet, but all the prior variables were in place, he had given it with contractual consent, etc. would you award her the sperm to unite with the egg against the wishes of the man?

That would be morally absurd. Of course a man's sperm should not be used over his objection and/or without his consent. (And it would be true in the reverse, an ex-wife's frozen eggs used in a new wife.)

[southside grabowski]

I believe that abortion is immoral and I believe that people should be allowed to do certain immoral things (so long as they do not impinge upon the rights of others). This should not be difficult to understand.

Groverat: The one aborted has probably been infringed upon

You do this yourself, or else you would campaign for blasphemers to be legally stoned to death with rocks. Yet you do not, why is this?

I have often called for the people to take to the streets with torches and ax handles:D

[groverat]

southside grabowski:

Groverat: The one aborted has probably been infringed upon

You're right. However, a fertilized egg (or a fetus in the 1st trimester) cannot be considered the absolute equal of a fully-developed human. Again, biology speaks too clearly to be ignored.

[southside grabowski]

Groverat, I was addressing what I see as a responsibility to stand for what you hold right and stand against what you hold wrong.

[groverat]

And as I said, no one, in all cases, will "stand against what they hold wrong" as far as legal prohibition.

I think cussing around little kids is immoral, but I will not support legislation against it.
I think abortion is immoral, but I will not support an outright ban on the practice.

It is not the job of the federal (or state/local) government to enforce, by law, my moral code. I understand that this nation is larger than myself and that my moral ideas are not the absolute truth for all people in all places in all times.

This is true of your existence as well, should you acknolwedge it.

[tonton]

Stranger still Tonton, I know you do have an ex and a child between you two. Care to share the terms you had to agree to since you make so many allegations? I'd love to see you in California coughing up 50% of your take home pay for six days a month of "parenting" or maybe visitation at an approved center and watch you hold your tongue about such an arrangement. Worse still, I'd love to watch your six days be denied by the vengeful ex and then have someone accuse you of hating all women if you dare to stand against such treatment for yourself or anyone else.

First, I'm sorry for the personal attack. I am especially harsh against you and SDW, and I shouldn't be.

I will try to tone it down, but sometimes I get really pissed off by something and slip... :p

Second with regard to my own situation, while I admit marrying the wrong woman, I was smart enough to have married a woman who would be incapable of asking for anything more than what's fair.

There were no lawyers and no arguments. I only pay her what I consider to be a marginal amount, but if she asked for more I would have tried my hardest to provide.

This is despite the fact that although my situation now is greatly improved, she is still earning more than I am.

And my daughter loves us both, so we are civil and kind to one-another, though we are no longer friends. I am a weekend dad, and wish I could do more for my daughter. I usually end up buying her shoes and other things, and when she has a special purchase for school, her mom and I split the expense.

The reason we both do this, and we do it ungrudgingly, is because we're both civil. Too many people in this world hold grudges against one-another and I think bitterness and the need for revenge is a sickness that should be treated.

Hopefully, my daughter will move in with me in two years to spend two years here. And I'll still continue the maintenance payments as long as my ex asks for them.

Now, I still think the only reason the man in this case would refuse to allow the use of the embryos is because of bitterness and malice against the woman.

We could look at the embryos as a human, or as property. If the embryos are human, then they should have every responsibility to try to bring them into this world if such is a possibility.

If they are property, then to argue for their termination would be akin to burning down the jointly owned marital house rather than splitting it.

[tonton]

Southside,

Faith is something you use to guide your own behavior, not that of others. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.

[southside grabowski]

Southside,

Faith is something you use to guide your own behavior, not that of others. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.



I'm talking neither about abortion nor faith Tonton. I call upon people to stand up for their convictions. Tolerance must have its limits. If you oppose homosexually, then don't do it. Simple. Let your homosexual neighbors have their peace. If you oppose old freaks luring young girls to their homes for sex, you must do more than "not do it". You must stand against those who do. We are becoming a society afraid to show any lack of tolerance. This is dangerous.
.

[groverat]

southside:

How on earth can you grill people on this issue when youduck the questions asked of you? That is absurd and cowardly.

Let me ask again: You do this yourself, or else you would campaign for blasphemers to be legally stoned to death with rocks. Yet you do not, why is this?

[southside grabowski]

Groverat, I stated that there are limitations i.e. the homosexual example in my last post. Blasphemers are of little concern to me. I, like you, don't believe that I should intervene unless someone is being harmed by the actions of another. Some may feel that blasphemers will bring wrath down upon all of us and want to stone them. I don't believe that. My point to you was that if you believe that abortion is immoral, it is not enough not to do it. You need to speak out against it. I don’t want to argue abortion. My assumption, perhaps wrong, was that you believe there to be a victim in abortion. I am far from a coward in an argument, Groverat.

If slavery were still legal would you "just not own slaves" or fight to ban it?

[trumptman]

trumptman:

It is impossible to discuss something with someone without noting their tone. In this case, your pestering repetition of (metaphorically) high-pitched questions is irritating. Questions are fine, but there is no need for this "Well what do you think!? HUH!? HUH?! WHAT THEN!?" foolishness. I simply ask you to tone it down and stop the fucking whining. ("Doesn't he get any rights!?" WAH WAH WAH!)

Do you have Al Franken reading my posts to you are something?:lol: :lol: :lol:

I'll have to ask you to reconsider (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/02/70179) your position.

At the same time, those reading messages unconsciously interpret them based on their current mood, stereotypes and expectations. Despite this, the research subjects thought they accurately interpreted the messages nine out of 10 times.

Well you seem to have forgotten that the resulting child (even in this extremely early stage) is no longer "his genetic material", but a new human with a new genetic code. I know you understand enough human biology to understand that your characterization of a fertilized embryo as someone else's "genetic material" is a massive logical fallacy.


I don't forget it. I just give the living, breathing, already born and bestowed with rights father a higher level of priority. We do the same thing in abortion. There is no reason to deny the rights of the man here nor any reason to give a embryo more rights than an adult.

He should have considered that before fertilizing an egg with his semen, and in the process creating a genetically-separate human being. Tough shit.


Actually he did consider it and signed a contract with stipulations BEFORE allowing his sperm to be used. So tough shit for her.

If this were a case of his frozen sperm it would be very different. She should have no moral right to use his frozen sperm against his wishes. Sadly, that is not the topic in discussion.

She should have no rights because she signed a contract and should honor the terms of it. The thinking that you can ignore and break a contract because you have a womb is nonsense.

The interests of the child are the consideration.
- Implantation in the mother serves the interests of the child (development), therefore that should be allowed. (This is less convincing in the case of the child being developed inside daddy's new girlfriend, because daddy's new girlfriend has no real connection to that child.)

Again, your reasoning here is way off base and simply doesn't make sense. Implantation in the mother serves the interest of the child, but implantation in the girlfriend does not? A womb is a womb and development from it is development. To suggest that the interests of the child are better served by being left as an embryo than be allowed to go to term in a womb that just doesn't happen to be her mother shows nothing but pure bias and sexism on your part. It is clear that the only consideration in your hierarchy of rights is what the mother wants and nothing else. Any attempt to grant rights, rights you have given a higher priority in other circumstances, are suddenly given dead last consideration based off what the mother wants.

What rights of the father are even in consideration here? I have asked this before and I think it needs to be answered. The child is not his "property" and he already reproduced when his sperm fertilized the egg.

They are in consideration because he is a human and all humans have rights. We know in this instance you are assigning rights where courts and the laws will not. (since this is a generalized conversation) However for the sake of that same conversation you have to remember that he did give up his sperm within those current laws and courts. He gave up the sperm knowing that the embryo would be considered property, that it could be terminated without his consent. You can't treat him like some idiot for giving up the sperm when he did so under those terms.

Clearly if the law were as you desired, he likely would not have allowed his sperm to be joined with the eggs. In that instance, you indicated you would not compel him to use his sperm. We cannot consider his actions in isolation. He consented with the current legal framework where the embryo is property and has rights below any current living, breathing birthed human. You can't punish him within your imaginary framework. He likely would have acted different within it.

Bringing a child to term has tremendous impact on the mother's body and absolutely no impact on the father's. That one is pretty simple.

Again, yet you would deny the father the right to bring the embryos to term with a surrogate that would have absolutely no impact on her body. You've completely failed to explain this away. There is no impact on the mother. It would honor the rights and wishes of the father to have a child. It would be in the child's interest with regard to development and you would deny it because of what the mother "wants" while she would be impacted in no fashion. You allow her to control her genetic material, even when joined into a embryo that you assign human status. In infringe on the everyone you have previously given rights and grant them where none were previously allowed in your own reasoning. You subjugate all rights to not even her rights, because her body isn't even involved, but to her wants and desires.

He has some, but not as many as the mother. If you've got a problem with that, go argue with god about his design.

Could you name them because in every hypothetical I've named, you've never once granted him any control or rights of any sort. As for God's design, science has made that point irrelevant here. Again you grant her the right to control the embryo even outside her body and do not grant the father the same consideration. It is clearly unequal treatment and would easily be found as such using the 14th amendment.

That would be morally absurd. Of course a man's sperm should not be used over his objection and/or without his consent. (And it would be true in the reverse, an ex-wife's frozen eggs used in a new wife.)

That is what is happening here though. He gave the consent with stipulations. Those stipulations occurred and he removed his consent. To say he would have given his consent without those stipulations is nothing but conjecture. It was conditional consent. If the conditions were not met, then it is not his fault his sperm was used.

Nick

[trumptman]

First, I'm sorry for the personal attack. I am especially harsh against you and SDW, and I shouldn't be.

I will try to tone it down, but sometimes I get really pissed off by something and slip... :p

Second with regard to my own situation, while I admit marrying the wrong woman, I was smart enough to have married a woman who would be incapable of asking for anything more than what's fair.

There were no lawyers and no arguments. I only pay her what I consider to be a marginal amount, but if she asked for more I would have tried my hardest to provide.

This is despite the fact that although my situation now is greatly improved, she is still earning more than I am.

And my daughter loves us both, so we are civil and kind to one-another, though we are no longer friends. I am a weekend dad, and wish I could do more for my daughter. I usually end up buying her shoes and other things, and when she has a special purchase for school, her mom and I split the expense.

The reason we both do this, and we do it ungrudgingly, is because we're both civil. Too many people in this world hold grudges against one-another and I think bitterness and the need for revenge is a sickness that should be treated.

Hopefully, my daughter will move in with me in two years to spend two years here. And I'll still continue the maintenance payments as long as my ex asks for them.

Now, I still think the only reason the man in this case would refuse to allow the use of the embryos is because of bitterness and malice against the woman.

We could look at the embryos as a human, or as property. If the embryos are human, then they should have every responsibility to try to bring them into this world if such is a possibility.

If they are property, then to argue for their termination would be akin to burning down the jointly owned marital house rather than splitting it.

Thanks for the apology and the sharing. I hope the time with your daughter does materialize. I notice you use the word hopefully. Do you really believe that you should be a second-class parent when it comes to your own daughter? Shouldn't you have the same rights and same time as her mother. We know you two are currently distributing the time in a manner that probably is beneficial to her in regard to schooling, life etc. However when it comes to to reverse that situation and give you your time, the word hope shouldn't be involved. You should have a right to parent your own child.

I spend my life involved with children and often I am their first male teacher. If I had a dollar for every instance a family member was thankful they would finally have a "male role model" in their child's lives, I wouldn't have to work. I see children aching for a father in their lives. Sure there are plenty of times where the dad is a screw up. However there are also plenty of times where they are concerned parents who are being denied access to their child often by a mother who gains from state benefits for being a single mom.

As a conservative, I see many women, renters, neighbors, mothers of students, even family members, who have adopted the government as a husband. They use their benefits to actually keep the men in their lives at bay. Sometime they are with irresponsible men and the government benefits allows them to stay with these men while having the government be the "responsible" husband. Often though they are the irresponsible ones and simply expect the government to clean up the train wreck that is their lives. They use the fact they receive money to prove any responsible man in their lives is "wrong." They push away anyone responsible.

You can imagine this scenario with a responsible father and irresponsible mother involved. It is beyond maddening. If your ex- weren't just the wrong woman, but was actually a bad woman, and you were fighting to be an influence in the life of your daughter, I think you would be able to see how being a second class parent would lead to a worse result for your daughter.

Imagine me, being the teacher at a parent conference with you explaining why your daughter is failing because the mother who has custody doesn't send her to school two days per week and realizing how you are helpless to change that. Perhaps then you can realize why I am passionate about this matter.

Nick

[groverat]

trumptman:

I don't forget it. I just give the living, breathing, already born and bestowed with rights father a higher level of priority.

That's fine, you can do that. But what you cannot do is refer to a fertilized egg as the "genetic material" of either the father or the mother. That is scientifically and logically fallacious.

Actually he did consider it and signed a contract with stipulations BEFORE allowing his sperm to be used. So tough shit for her.

For the love of Christ, I have said repeatedly that I do not give a shit about the fucking contract, I am referring to everything in a general sense, not with regards to any specific case.

Implantation in the mother serves the interest of the child, but implantation in the girlfriend does not?

Yes, implantation in the girlfriend (or any woman at all capable of bringing the child to term) serves the interest of the child. However, that is not the only consideration. A fertilized egg should only be available to the parents. And when medical science allows a man to, by himself, carry a child to term then he should have the exact same access as the mother.

They are in consideration because he is a human and all humans have rights.

What right?

Again, yet you would deny the father the right to bring the embryos to term with a surrogate that would have absolutely no impact on her body.

The surrogate is neither the mother nor the father, therefore that surrogate has no claim on the child. An outsider's claim on the child against the wishes of the mother would be highly immoral.

Could you name them because in every hypothetical I've named, you've never once granted him any control or rights of any sort.

He has the right to visitation and participation in the child's life, even if the mother disagrees. As a parent, I would think that you would see this as something of non-trivial importance.

It is clearly unequal treatment and would easily be found as such using the 14th amendment.

The physical inequality of the situation cannot be ignored with simpering about Political Correctness.

That is what is happening here though.

No, it's not. The sperm no longer exists, what is in question is a fertilized egg, a new life, not sperm. Your attempt to perpetuate this victim attitude is leading you to violate the basic biological truths of the matter.

[trumptman]

I'll let you enjoy the last word Grove. There clearly is repetition of points here. Good conversation. I'm sure others will judge for themselves the merits of our points.

Nick