I keep hearing about this Amazon thing. Maybe some day I will try it.

wow, what an asshole.

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=348722006

"sorry?  you're infertile, want to have children and my consent is the only thing standing between you and children?....tough titties sister"
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 7th, 2006 8:35pm
Why should he have to have kids if he doesn't want to?
Permalink Send private email sharkfish 
March 7th, 2006 8:41pm
Yeah, no shit.  They're frozen EMBRYOS, not frozen eggs.  They're half "his".  He could face legal liability even if she signs a waiver or whatever, and aside from that maybe he doesn't want to be a dad.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 7th, 2006 8:42pm
he shouldn't *have* to.  but he should give his consent freely given the circumstances.


This is a woman he once loved, and he cannot even see his way to helping her achieve a little happiness when it wont cost him anything.

hence, he is an asshole.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 7th, 2006 8:43pm
"He could face legal liability even if she signs a waiver or whatever, and aside from that maybe he doesn't want to be a dad"

so maybe he should agree providing she agrees to leave the country?
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 7th, 2006 8:44pm
It won't cost him anything according to YOUR value system.  HE might have a problem with having a child which is biologically his running around without his involvement, or even with his involvement.  Why should he have to?  Why is he an asshole if he doesn't want to?

It's not a given that he's being vindictive.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 7th, 2006 8:45pm
"It won't cost him anything according to YOUR value system. "

Im expected to judge him according to *someone elses* value system?

damn.

"HE might have a problem with having a child which is biologically his running around without his involvement, or even with his involvement."

so?  she might have a problem with not having a child at all, ever, ever, ever.

In the face of that I would think that he could just get the fuck over his problem and help her with hers. 

he will always have the choice.  now is a chance for him to exercise that choice in such a way that he doesn't look like an asshole.


"Why should he have to?"

he doesn't have to.

"Why is he an asshole if he doesn't want to? "

because she can never, ever, have children.  when they found this out he and she took steps to ensure that she *could* have children despite the cancer.

now he is blocking her from taking advantage of this, just because there is nothing in it for him.

how would he have felt back then if she had insisted on ceating embryos with half a dozen men 'jut in case'?



"It's not a given that he's being vindictive."

of course hes being vindictive.  there is no other reason not to let her go ahead.
she has cancer, she can never ever have children.
he could help her with this.
he wont.

hence, he is an asshole.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 7th, 2006 8:52pm
What's the big deal about kids anyway?  I guess I didn't get the mommy gene.  I don't parse this overwrought wahhh I wanna be a mommy shit.
Permalink Send private email sharkfish 
March 7th, 2006 8:55pm
Again, there's no reason according to you.  When you dismiss perfectly valid reasons as trivial (because you say so) then there's not much left to debate about.

She could adopt.  How about she's being a cunt by trying to force the issue through all available legal channels rather than just respecting the guy's decision not to have a kid.  For some people, contributing their genetic material to the creation of a new life is a little more profound than letting the ex-wife keep the family home because it's next door to her parents' or whatever.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 7th, 2006 8:56pm
"What's the big deal about kids anyway?  I guess I didn't get the mommy gene."


<shrug> some women do, some dont.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 7th, 2006 8:56pm
It's not like he's taking the pet dog that he never really cared about and she loved.  Maybe his wanting to have children with her specifically was predicated on the idea of being married to her, and now they're not, so he's no longer interested.  it's entirely his call.

What happened to this chick is really, really unfortunate, even tragic, but it's not his problem or even his moral imperative.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 7th, 2006 9:00pm
"How about she's being a cunt by trying to force the issue through all available legal channels rather than just respecting the guy's decision not to have a kid."

She gets cancer so they decided to freeze a few embryos so that they can have children.  That'll be her only chance ever to have a child of her own genetically.  So now he withdraws concent an her only hope of that dies forever.

He may be legally right, but he's still an asshole.
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 7th, 2006 9:00pm
"She gets cancer so they decided to freeze a few embryos so that they can have children.  That'll be her only chance ever to have a child of her own genetically."

Yep, and that's terribly tragic.  Really, really terrible.  I feel awful for her.  But it does not mean the guy should now be forced to have children.  He participated in the embryo freezing when he thought they would be married.  Now they won't be.  Not his problem.

You both are repeating the same few lines over and over as if that composes an argument.  I fail to see why this man should be forced to have children if he doesn't want to, regardless of the cirumstances.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 7th, 2006 9:05pm
"You both are repeating the same few lines over and over as if that composes an argument."

...And as usual, you pull out a strawman:

"But it does not mean the guy should now be forced to have children."

I didn't say he should be forced to do anything.  I just said he's an asshole.  Simple argument: He can give this woman the ultimate gift, a gift only he can give, and he won't do it.  Asshole.  QED.
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 7th, 2006 9:11pm
" When you dismiss perfectly valid reasons as trivial (because you say so) then there's not much left to debate about. "

I did not dismiss them as trivial.  I dismissed them as being less important than *her* perfectly valid reasons for wanting to have a baby.

for some women its a very basic need.  he could help her with achieving this.  he wont.

"She could adopt."

true, thats a good idea.  given that she wants babies of her own, and has the opportunity to have them if he would just stop being an asshole though, I guess its a poor second choice.


"contributing their genetic material to the creation of a new life is a little more profound"

oh bollocks.  men contribute their genetic material to anythign that lets them.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 7th, 2006 9:15pm
>>>>>>> tough titties sister

Her former partner is her brother?
Permalink  
March 7th, 2006 9:16pm
"I didn't say he should be forced to do anything.  I just said he's an asshole.  Simple argument: He can give this woman the ultimate gift, a gift only he can give, and he won't do it.  Asshole.  QED."


exactly.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 7th, 2006 9:17pm
I wonder if we can turn this around.  Say a man wants to have kids.  His sperm will only germinate one woman's egg, or some subset of women that have these rare eggs.

He happened to be married to one of these women.  They divorce.  Should he be able to force her to have his children?
Permalink Send private email sharkfish 
March 7th, 2006 9:38pm
"oh bollocks.  men contribute their genetic material to anythign that lets them."

Exactly, your arguments only make sense in the context of your narrow world.

QED, yourself.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 7th, 2006 9:42pm
umm....you know I hate being critical, but thats just TOTALLY DIFFERENT IN EVERY WAY.

here are some of the smaller differences:

(1) she has to go through 9 months of pregnancy
(2) they didn't realise this earlier, extract 6 of her eggs and impregnate them with his sperm specifically for the purpose of ensuring that he *could* have children at a later date
(3) he doesn't have cancer
(4) for THE 500th TIME no one is saying anyone should be able to force anyone to do anything.

fix those things and *yes* she is being an asshole if she refuses to help him.
Permalink LinuxOrBust 
March 7th, 2006 9:44pm
Men care about having children?
Permalink  
March 7th, 2006 9:45pm
"Exactly, your arguments only make sense in the context of your narrow world. "

(1) wow, way to extract one small part of what I said and ignore the rest.

(2) im not sure why you keep expecting me to make arguments that dont make sense in the context of my world?  Perhaps if you could explain the reasoning behind this expectation we could have a more intelligent conversation.
Permalink LinuxOrBust 
March 7th, 2006 9:46pm
heh.

LinuxOrBust = FullNameRequired of course.

oops.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 7th, 2006 9:47pm
"2) im not sure why you keep expecting me to make arguments that dont make sense in the context of my world?  Perhaps if you could explain the reasoning behind this expectation we could have a more intelligent conversation."

Hehe, you pick on me for selectively ignoring bits of your argument, and you rebut with a big flashing false dichotomy.

Nice talking with you FNR.  :-)
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 7th, 2006 9:51pm
Always a pleasure :)  Im sorry I had to make you look so stupid...
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 7th, 2006 9:54pm
How is the law tending in the EU regarding parental responsibility? If this was the US and the guy consented to her being impregnated, he would be totally and absolutely on the hook for child support.

Of course, that's the unfeeling fiduciary aspect.

I'm curious - how come her emotions (that she wants to bear "her own" child) are so very compelling, but his emotions (he does not want "his own" child borne outside his relationship) aren't? My wife is huge on this - the whole "Philo's genetic material is part of our relationship" thing, while I honestly couldn't care less - "my kids" are the children that I raise, not what comes of five minutes of wrist action.

But I see his point emotionally, and I'm interested to hear what the EU's stance on his paternal obligations are legally.
Permalink Send private email Steel McLargeHuge 
March 7th, 2006 10:06pm
Heh.  "You inseminate it, you must bear responsibility for it."
Permalink Send private email sharkfish 
March 7th, 2006 10:08pm
"If this was the US and the guy consented to her being impregnated, he would be totally and absolutely on the hook for child support."

I also find it interesting that he has in fact fertilized some eggs -- the deed is done, so to speak.  And yet, it's really not an issue until they are implanted.  You have to draw the line somewhere but I found that sort of strange.

"I'm curious - how come her emotions (that she wants to bear "her own" child) are so very compelling, but his emotions (he does not want "his own" child borne outside his relationship) aren't?"

Those two things aren't really equivalent though.  Being given the chance to bear her own children, specifically after planning to do so, is much different from simply denying it.

"But I see his point emotionally, and I'm interested to hear what the EU's stance on his paternal obligations are legally."

It's unfortunate you simply cannot sign a contract that says "no responsiblity what so ever" and be done with it.  That would eliminate some (but clearly not all) of the issue.
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 7th, 2006 10:12pm
"I'm curious - how come her emotions (that she wants to bear "her own" child) are so very compelling, but his emotions (he does not want "his own" child borne outside his relationship) aren't?"


thats a good, fair question.

look at it this way...if she had known that he would refuse her access to these embryos when they were...made(?)...do you think she would only have used his sperm, or do you think that she would have made further backups?

I think she would have made further backups.

At the time she was under the impression that she had covered herself against the damage done by the cancer and that whatever else happened she would still be able to have children.

now he has taken that away from her, without giving up anything himself.

she *tried* to defend herself against the damage done by the cancer as best as she could.  but he is totally undoing that.

that was her one desperate last chance....its not even certain that those embryos could be implanted (what is the success rate these days?)....but it was all she had and now she wont even get to make the attempt.

sure, he is 'within his rights', but he is *also* an asshole of the worst kind.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 7th, 2006 10:14pm
"but he is *also* an asshole of the worst kind."

Will you still feel that way if it turns out the EU has the same standard? That it will make him liable for child support?
Permalink Send private email Steel McLargeHuge 
March 7th, 2006 10:24pm
"Will you still feel that way if it turns out the EU has the same standard? That it will make him liable for child support"

pretty much. yes.

As I understand it, just because he is liable doesn't mean he has to pay unless she sues him for it.

if she agrees not to sue him for it then there is no problem.

if she *does* sue him for it later then clearly she is in the wrong from that point...but at lerast he will have done the right thing by her.

seriously, you cannot kill someones hope of having a child just because it might, but almost certainly wont,  cost you a few dollars.

he is being a selfish, controlling asshole.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 7th, 2006 10:27pm
They are both asshole.

Or neither of them are asshole.
Permalink Rick Tang 
March 7th, 2006 11:09pm
He is an asshole.

She has no other choices to get an egg fertilized, and I'm sure they could get some sort of legal agreement to make it similar to sperm donors so that he's not on the hook.

(If she had to go through the same ugly process as someone doing in-vitro, he's a huge, gaping, muppet-type bleeding rectum asshole.)

That said, he's well within his rights.  It's his genetic material, the same as if they'd just gotten married and had kids, so if he's unwilling to have a kid come into existence but not be part of the kid's life, that's his right.

Overall, I'd still go with asshole, though.
Permalink Send private email Ward 
March 7th, 2006 11:17pm
I got distracted and forgot to mention that, like Philo's cousin, they clearly weren't ready to be having kids anyway.
Permalink Send private email Ward 
March 7th, 2006 11:19pm
One wants to have her own kid.

One doesn't want to have his own kid.

It's unfortunate that only the wish of one person could be fulfilled.

So nowadays not being nice is an asshole?
Permalink Rick Tang 
March 7th, 2006 11:29pm
"So nowadays not being nice is an asshole?"

This is a bit more than not being nice...
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 7th, 2006 11:31pm
I thought the same thing Almost -- depending upon interpretations and values, he -already- voluntarily chose to have children when he was party to the creation of the embryos. From some perspectives, choosing to withdraw his support now is tantamount to a forced abortion of sorts (yes it's a stretch, but it is one perspective).

The guy sounds like a total asshole, and it sounds like a gap in the laws.
Permalink Send private email Dennis Forbes 
March 7th, 2006 11:38pm
Ok, I re-read the article, she did do the IVF thing.

He is an asshole beyond belief. 

All a guy has to do for IVF is jack off.  The stuff a woman has to do is ugly, starting with getting shots every day for a few cycles and I forget the rest.

He's a huge, goatse-size, oozing, putrescent asshole.
Permalink Send private email Ward 
March 7th, 2006 11:41pm
Forced abortion has been going on because it's soly a woman's right.

John and Jane want to have a baby. After three months pregancy, Jane doesn't want to have a baby. She goes for abortion. John would have no say.

So Jane is an asshole?
Permalink Rick Tang 
March 7th, 2006 11:43pm
Oh, god, Rick, don't be such a moron.  Abortion is an unending argument even if everyone speaks the same language.

ANY scenario involving abortion is useless as an ethical illustration, because the "other side" of the scenario is always open to debate.
Permalink Send private email Ward 
March 7th, 2006 11:47pm
umm...yes?  I would definitely call her an asshole for that. 

certainly if she was *my* jane Id dump the bitch in a second unless she had a *really* good reason.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 7th, 2006 11:47pm
Aaaaaaaaaaagggggggghhhhhh! Ignore him! Do not begin to discuss abortion, it's the path to madness!

(but you're right, she's an asshole in that situation)
Permalink Send private email Ward 
March 7th, 2006 11:49pm
Rick,

Until we have embryo incubation devices, women do naturally (and probably rightfully) have more of say in the matter. It is obviously pretty mixed up though.
Permalink Send private email Dennis Forbes 
March 7th, 2006 11:50pm
Ward,

Embrace the detour!
Permalink Send private email Dennis Forbes 
March 7th, 2006 11:55pm
Well, they seperated.

If the guy dumped her and refused to give consent then he is an asshole.

I consider whoever decided to seperate is the asshole.
Permalink Rick Tang 
March 8th, 2006 12:00am
_I_ am the local expert on abortion.

My step-great-grandmother was a notorious Portland-area abortionist, as told in "They Weep on my Doorstep."  She wasn't a doctor, however, it wasn't necessary in those days.
Permalink Send private email Ward 
March 8th, 2006 12:02am
Dennis.  I am in awe of your more liberal than usual stance.
Permalink Send private email sharkfish 
March 8th, 2006 12:09am
That's only because you are unable to see beyond your preconceptions and comprehend the world as it really is.
Permalink Send private email Ward 
March 8th, 2006 12:23am
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/08/nivf108.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/03/08/ixhome.html

"He claims she was possessive, they were arguing, and he wanted to be himself and live on his own. He had changed jobs in IT sales, his salary was rising rapidly, and, like many an ambitious man in his twenties, wanted to go out and enjoy himself."

A bit more background info on this article. I must say based on the little information we have, the man sounds like a selfish asshole for leaving his partner six months after she was found to have cancer. However, he is fully entitled to his right to choose of when/if/whom with he wants to become a father.
Permalink Wills 
March 8th, 2006 12:26am
"because the "other side" of the scenario is always open to debate."

I do not understand the point here. Could you eleborate?

Destruction of an embryo is the issue here, am I right?
Permalink Rick Tang 
March 8th, 2006 12:44am
No, I couldn't.

Sorry, this is exactly the reason for my "even if everyone speaks the same language," comment.
Permalink Send private email Ward 
March 8th, 2006 12:49am
The woman had the option of storing eggs as well as embryos, if she'd stored eggs she could have had them fertilised without anyone's consent being required.

On the other hand had he fertilised those embryos and they'd implanted in the womb he could not have forced her to abort them.

Giving her what she wants in this case might be good for her but it would be bad for the law in general and that's why it was turned down and her appeals turned down.  On the basis of public policy, that consent in IVF has to be maintained throughout.
Permalink Send private email Simon Lucy 
March 8th, 2006 2:48am
"Simple argument: He can give this woman the ultimate gift, a gift only he can give, and he won't do it.  Asshole.  QED."

Simple argument: Bill Gates can give me the ultimate gift, a gift only he can give - a Bugatti Veyron. And he won't do it. Asshole. QED.

"(1) she has to go through 9 months of pregnancy"

And he has to go through the rest of his life as a parent of a child he doesn't want with a woman he doesn't love.

"Men care about having children?"

Believe it or not, yes.

"If this was the US and the guy consented to her being impregnated, he would be totally and absolutely on the hook for child support."

Same here. He gave his consent for the fertilization, and if he'll give his consent for the baby, he will have all the responsibilities of parenthood. That's the thing about it: people today are trained by the pro-choice movement to think of pregnancy as exclusively the business of the woman, and that men are only there for the few minutes at the beginning. In reality having a child makes a huge impact on a man's life, and it's disingenuous to claim that just because he isn't carrying the baby for nine months or breast-feeding it for six, he isn't as affected.

"It's unfortunate you simply cannot sign a contract that says "no responsiblity what so ever" and be done with it."

Actually there are very good reasons why such a contract cannot be upheld.

"if she had known that he would refuse her access to these embryos when they were...made"

She thought she was going to spend the rest of her life with this guy. That didn't happen. Life sucks.

"As I understand it, just because he is liable doesn't mean he has to pay unless she sues him for it."

The EU isn't as litigous as the US. As this is Britain (Scotland I think?), which has a powerful social security system, he'll probably be liable for child support automatically.

"depending upon interpretations and values, he -already- voluntarily chose to have children when he was party to the creation of the embryos."

Not according to his values or the values of his society, obviously.
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
March 8th, 2006 3:00am
The legal position is that consent is required up to the point of implantation and can be withdrawn at any time up to that point.  This came up in the Diane Blood case a few years ago.

On the personal level I don't approve of his behavior although I support the law he's using. 

However it is interesting to ask people the question "What if the roles were reversed?"  Supporters of her "right" to a child can suddenly become supporters of her "right" not to have one.
Permalink Send private email a cynic writes... 
March 8th, 2006 5:17am
I'm behind the guy 100% -- if he doesn't want to have children with this woman, that's his right entirely.  Yes, it's sad she can't have kids, etc. etc., but why does that make it this guy's problem?
Permalink Send private email Mat Hall 
March 8th, 2006 6:06am
- Why don't men have such consent in utero? Or at least the option to opt out of child support/visitation rights.

- Legal and ethical are not the same thing. He has legality squarely behind him. However, the guy is being a prick. The lawyers could make it so that he's not liable for anything (men who donate to sperm banks have no legal rights/obligations, a contract could be written in the same way). It's no skin (maybe foreskin, heh!) off his back. He could do the compassionate thing. The fact that the law doesn't force him to do it would make his actions more compassionate (in fact probably he'd become more attractive to other women).

- It's like in the Merchant of Venice - he says he's doing what he's doing because of the law, but it's really because of spite. He wants his pound of flesh (or miligrams) no matter what.

- She should have had in vitro fertilized some of her eggs with someone else. Don't put all your eggs in one basket!

- Don't mothers warn their daughters about aborted engagements anymore? Don't count your chickens before they hatch, dearie!

- 53 posts: i can't believe you all didn't use any of those puns/allusions.
Permalink bring out da punk 
March 8th, 2006 10:27am
"...men who donate to sperm banks have no legal rights/obligations, a contract could be written in the same way..."

Two points.  One, that's not entirely true, and is the subject of much debate at the moment.  Two, the guy will still KNOW he has a child out there, and perhaps "not having any rights or obligations" is part of his problem -- maybe he figures if he's going to have a kid he wants some part in its life but wants no part in the life of this woman.
Permalink Send private email Mat Hall 
March 8th, 2006 10:51am
"- maybe he figures if he's going to have a kid he wants some part in its life but wants no part in the life of this woman."

DING DING DING

And why does this make him an asshole?  Apparently it's because the woman's terribly sad story makes her rights take precedence over his. 

You are (almost) all a bunch of easily manipulated, sorry tits.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 8th, 2006 10:55am
And there goes muppet with the same tired strawman...  seriously muppet, grab Dorothy and Toto and get that strawman to Oz for a brain already.

Rights is not the issue.  Clearly he has the rights and nobody here has argued against it.  He's being an asshole, however, for excersizing his rights.  And it's not just a terribly sad story, it's a tragic one.

If you see some poor person crashed on the side of the road and you just drive by, that's your right.  However, you're still a little bit of asshole.  See..  rights and assholism are not linked.
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 8th, 2006 11:05am
Wrong, AA, it's not just about rights.  It's about the guy's own heart, mind, and soul, just like the woman's.  Maybe he doesn't want his kids, which he maybe sees as something profound, to live without his influence, and he's not interested in living a life with his kids AND this particular woman.  Why should he be forced?  Why is he a bad person for not wanting it?  You're looking at things from a VERY narrow viewpoint.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 8th, 2006 11:06am
Really?  Perhaps it's just if I was in that position I can't see myself saying "tough".  Maybe I've just been lucky.
Permalink Send private email a cynic writes... 
March 8th, 2006 11:14am
"Why should he be forced?" -- here we go again.

"Why is he a bad person for not wanting it?"

Having a kid trumps not having a kid.  I think there's a ultilitarian argument there -- she's more harmed than him.  He's well within his right to remain unharmed but he's an asshole for not making that extremely small sacrifice.
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 8th, 2006 11:14am
"Having a kid trumps not having a kid.  I think there's a ultilitarian argument there -- she's more harmed than him."

This is an incredibly subjective value call.  Who are you to impose it on the guy (even just to label him an asshole)?
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 8th, 2006 11:28am
You can't/shouldn't be forced to do anything you don't want. Ever.
If you do it even if you dont want to, well, that's your problem.
Don't argue in third person. Ask yourself what would you do if you'd be him.
Would you marry her just because is she dying? Would you have a baby if you dont want to?
I'm gonna get a little harsh here but, forcing a women to have a kid even if she don't want to is called rape, right?
I don't see anyone calling a woman an asshole because she doesn't want to have a baby.
Permalink Send private email Masiosare 
March 8th, 2006 11:39am
Men don't but women can be quite unkind.  In that case I think the usual insult used in these parts is "selfish cow".
Permalink Send private email a cynic writes... 
March 8th, 2006 11:42am
"...forcing a women to have a kid even if she don't want to is called rape, right?" 

Or, depending where you live, abortion law...
Permalink Send private email a cynic writes... 
March 8th, 2006 11:44am
"You can't/shouldn't be forced to do anything you don't want."

No one is forcing him to submit some of his sperm for her use. The facts of this case are that he ---already--- chose to be the other half in the creation of embryos -- created from eggs that were taken because she knew it was her last chance to have kids. In my personal opinion he already made that choice, and already started the biological process. No one is being forced.

Again, imagine if that embryo was naturally created in her, and then they broke up and he petitioned for the law to force her to have an abortion because he didn't want kids brought up without his influence, blah blah blah. Who could even FATHOM supporting the father in such a case?
Permalink Send private email Dennis Forbes 
March 8th, 2006 11:51am
I think the "he's an asshole" proponents assume that there is a way to clear him from all legal responsibility. An argument on this thread is whether this assumption is true. Fair enough. That's a valid disagreement over the facts.

But another disagreement is whether, given this assumption that he is free from further obligation, that there is no actual detriment to him, he acts ethically.  Do the "he's not an asshole" people believe that he acts faultlessly under this assumption? Brad Pitt cheated on Jennifer Anniston legally. But he's still an asshole for doing it.

I don't think there's any disgreement over whether the man should be forced to oblige the woman's wishes. She has no serious legal case. No one should forced to not be an asshole. I will in fact defend his right to be an asshole!

Someone upthread mentioned Bill Gates and whether he is obliged to give away money. But recall a few years ago: Bill Gates was hounded for his lack of altruism, for hoarding his money despite the fact that he paid is taxes and did everything legally. He really was a stingy asshole. Since then he has given away 98% of his wealth and was Time's Man of the Year for his altruism.

It's a heterogenous ethos: those who can help others (with no or minor inconvenience to themselves) are more obliged to do so than those who can't. But they can only be heroic if the law doesn't force them to be (that is in the Merchant of Venice too).
Permalink bring out da punk 
March 8th, 2006 11:55am
Crap, I should read before post :P
If he already made a decision then yeah, he is an asshole. If you already started a life then you can't take back that because you don't want now.
Maybe his parents should think just as he. :P
Permalink Send private email Masiosare 
March 8th, 2006 11:56am
"Again, imagine if that embryo was naturally created in her, and then they broke up and he petitioned for the law to force her to have an abortion because he didn't want kids brought up without his influence, blah blah blah. Who could even FATHOM supporting the father in such a case?"

But it wasn't, Dennis, and that's part of what contributes to making this case different.

What if the woman was suing to force him to donate sperm because she had a verbal contract with him to bear children.  "How many shall we have once we're married, darling?"  Would he be an asshole because he didn't want to do that, either?
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 8th, 2006 11:59am
No doubt it's a complex case, and I could flip the argument that I'm making and say that he should be able to demand that she carry the embryos they created.

Nonetheless, I just don't believe that he's being forced to do anything that he didn't already agree to, and now basically wants to reverse. People argue that she should have read the fine print and hedged her bets with frozen eggs (can they be frozen? Seems like there must have been a reason for them to choose to store embryos) or alternately fertilized eggs. Yet with a small movement of the line, one could say that he should have realized the sobre consequences of creating embryos.
Permalink Send private email Dennis Forbes 
March 8th, 2006 12:04pm
"Nonetheless, I just don't believe that he's being forced to do anything that he didn't already agree to"

Sure he is.  The whole context of the implied agreement has changed.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 8th, 2006 12:06pm
Legally it's not a complex case. Explicit consent is required to implant. He says no - it doesn't happen.  Emotionally (and possibly ethically) it's not so cut and dried. 

I suspect their breakup was less than amicable and that's why he's saying no and she's dragging him through the courts in a hopeless battle.
Permalink Send private email a cynic writes... 
March 8th, 2006 12:09pm
"What if the woman was suing to force him to donate sperm because she had a verbal contract with him to bear children."

Obviously, if she can have children with just any sperm than it's not an issue.  Morally, does his wishes not to have biological children with this one woman trump her wishes to ever have biological children?  Morally, I say not. 

Some other points:

"I don't see anyone calling a woman an asshole because she doesn't want to have a baby."

Lets say a man wants to have children, marries a women under  expressed agree that she will have his children, and then she doesn't -- yes, I'd call her an asshole.

"I think the "he's an asshole" proponents assume that there is a way to clear him from all legal responsibility."

Well, if she went after him for child support or other parental responsiblilty if he agrees to this than that would make her a bigger asshole than him.
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 8th, 2006 12:11pm
"Obviously, if she can have children with just any sperm than it's not an issue.  Morally, does his wishes not to have biological children with this one woman trump her wishes to ever have biological children?  Morally, I say not. "

But this is a special case in which HIS SPECIFIC SPERM is required because her remaining eggs have all been fertilized with it and it can't be undone.  So say his sperm was still in his nuts, but she could only use his.  Would you still be OK with compelling him to donate?
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 8th, 2006 12:12pm
"Would you still be OK with compelling him to donate?"

No.  But if he had already ejaculated into a cup and provided a written agreement than I say yes.  (again assuming his sperm is the only sperm that works).  At some point, he agreed to this (pretty strongly) and backing out now is just being an asshole.
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 8th, 2006 12:21pm
It would be one thing if a spiteful women held some embryos as blackmail against a former lover (although that lover should have been more cautious), but it's quite another when a women has stored embryos specifically because she was losing the ability to have kids, and then he renegs.
Permalink Send private email Dennis Forbes 
March 8th, 2006 12:23pm
"At some point, he agreed to this (pretty strongly) and backing out now is just being an asshole."

Why, if the entire context of the agreement has been altered?  Why does that make him an asshole?  How about a reason besides "I say so"?
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 8th, 2006 12:23pm
"Why, if the entire context of the agreement has been altered?"

Lets see, he's her only chance to ever have her own children.  That part of the agreement has never changed.  He knew that going in.  If they weren't broken up, there would be no moral issue at all -- it's because the contaxt of the agreement has changed that it's a moral issue at all.
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 8th, 2006 12:27pm
But it's not a moral issue -- he doesn't want to have children with this woman.  The end.
Permalink Send private email Mat Hall 
March 8th, 2006 12:29pm
"Lets see, he's her only chance to ever have her own children."

If I'm air-dropped for some unknown reason into a sparsely populated region of Ethiopia, and the only way these people will ever get a meal is to chop me up and make me into stir fry, am I an asshole if I beat them all to a pulp and build a raft of their bones to escape?
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 8th, 2006 12:33pm
"But it's not a moral issue -- he doesn't want to have children with this woman."

He agreed to be the only way this woman will ever have her own biological children.  He backed out.  Moral issue.  Asshole.
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 8th, 2006 12:38pm
Muppet, if I offer you a truck to help you move.  In fact, last week I drove the truck to your house and left you the key.  On the morning that you have to move, I come back and take the truck back because I don't want you driving it.  I think, that would make me an asshole...  ;)
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 8th, 2006 12:40pm
Sure, but now we're talking about an issue of scale.  Me putting mileage on your truck is somewhat different from me having your children.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 8th, 2006 12:41pm
No.

But if you voluntarily give up your life then retract your promise, you may be wrong.

AHA, Dennis and others just don't think his right is important in this case and he is not suffering for having his own child and never ever be able to see him/her again.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 8th, 2006 12:45pm
"In fact, last week I drove the truck to your house and left you the key.  On the morning that you have to move, I come back and take the truck back because I don't want you driving it"

Well, day before muppet moves he expose your secret on this forum. You are angry and therefore take your truck back.

Now are you an asshole?
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 8th, 2006 12:47pm
>>> "Would you still be OK with compelling him to donate?"

I think he's an asshole, but I absolutely don't think he should be compelled to donate.

I don't get the simple A or not-A logic that goes on in lots of arguments, including this one.  I think what he's doing is bad, but I think he should be allowed to do it.
Permalink Send private email Ward 
March 8th, 2006 1:00pm
I'm not trying to make this a black or white argument.  I just don't agree that what he's doing is bad.  There are perfectly valid emotional and moral reasons that he personally might no longer want a child with this person, and it doesn't make him a bad person not to want to.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 8th, 2006 1:03pm
>>> this case and he is not suffering for having his own child and never ever be able to see him/her again.

Gah! Can't you people see that "asshole" and "morally obligated" aren't on the same axis?

It might be that he'd suffer for knowing there's a kid of his out there, but so what.  Maybe he's just being flippant - "I think I'll say no to her, just to piss her off."  That has no bearing on what I think of him.

He has a right to say no, for any reason he wants.  I think Mat keeps pointing out that that's the way the law is written, and I think that's how it should be.

He's still an asshole for not being helpful.
Permalink Send private email Ward 
March 8th, 2006 1:04pm
Sometime ago the trolls were feeded with ID. Now it's abortion.

Long live to the trolls. And to the longest thread in COT (almost)
:P
Permalink Send private email Masiosare 
March 8th, 2006 1:05pm
Well... not exactly abortion, but you know what i mean.
Permalink Send private email Masiosare 
March 8th, 2006 1:05pm
I don't think anyone is portraying it as a cut and dry situation.

In any case, for the defender of the man's rights -- a couple just got pregnant, they're in the first trimester, and he discovers that he's really gay and loves the poolboy. Is he right, and should be be allowed, to force her to get an abortion given that he no longer wants to parent that child with her?
Permalink Send private email Dennis Forbes 
March 8th, 2006 1:05pm
>>> There are perfectly valid emotional and moral reasons that he personally might no longer want a child with this person, and it doesn't make him a bad person not to want to.

Well fuck you for making a short, reasonable statement of a position that I disagree with and now I'm not so sure of my stand.

YOU'RE an asshole.
Permalink Send private email Ward 
March 8th, 2006 1:06pm
:-)

masi -

been covered.  Read threads before replying kthxbye.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 8th, 2006 1:07pm
"he is not suffering for having his own child and never ever be able to see him/her again."

Ward, it is *nice* if he let her has the child despite his objections/suffering.

But he is not an asshole for not doing so.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 8th, 2006 1:18pm
His suffering is all in his head.  He either has no child or he has a child that he doesn't see.  What's the big difference between those things?  For all he knows, he has some child somewhere from a one night stand in college -- is he harmed by that, no.  Having your own children is a biological imparitive for the species -- that's her reasoning.  What's his?  He'll feel all uncomfortable about it -- boo fucking hoo.
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 8th, 2006 1:30pm
"His suffering is all in his head.  He either has no child or he has a child that he doesn't see.  What's the big difference between those things?  For all he knows, he has some child somewhere from a one night stand in college -- is he harmed by that, no.  Having your own children is a biological imparitive for the species -- that's her reasoning.  What's his?  He'll feel all uncomfortable about it -- boo fucking hoo."

This is a ridiculous oversimplification and you knew it when you were writing it.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 8th, 2006 1:32pm
Well, you obviously don't put much value on fatherhood.

And why she has to have her own baby? It's all in her head either.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 8th, 2006 1:33pm
"This is a ridiculous oversimplification and you knew it when you were writing it."

Most of the counter arguments are as much of an oversimplification.  It's just like it's an oversimplification for pro-choice people to say it's the womans body and nothing more.  Her needs are real.  His rights are real.  He's choosing to excerise his rights in a fairly asshole kind of way.

"Well, you obviously don't put much value on fatherhood."

No I do.  But I also think fatherhood is about more than biology.  The best situation is both biology and actually being there -- which is what she wants.  But if you're just the sperm donor, you're not really a father.
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 8th, 2006 1:44pm
"But if you're just the sperm donor, you're not really a father."

Not everyone agrees with you.  This man, for instance, apparently does not.

Are you going to now claim that your values are superior to his?
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 8th, 2006 1:45pm
So what if he's the father..  you've never really explained why it's so terrible for him to donate some genetic material (which he's ALREADY donated, I might add).
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 8th, 2006 1:48pm
"So what if he's the father..  you've never really explained why it's so terrible for him to donate some genetic material (which he's ALREADY donated, I might add)."

He's donated it but it wasn't used to make a kid, that's the important bit.  Yes, if he'd already had children with her and then they broke up, he'd be "stuck", but that's not what happened.

As it stands, there are a bunch of blobs of goo in a lab someplace, and the blobs are equally hers and his.  The blobs can be used from this moment forward to create a child that is genetically hers AND his.  He no longer wants a child with this woman.  He has declined.  This is straightforward.  This is water-is-wet-and-the-sky-is-blue stuff.  It is incumbent upon YOU to explain what's wrong with this, not on me to explain why it's right.  The total acceptability of this is self-evident.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 8th, 2006 1:50pm
"He's donated it but it wasn't used to make a kid, that's the important bit."

It was used to create life -- in fact, a new life.  I'm not sure why, legally, since the life is equally hers and his that the default is to flush it rather than keep it.

"He no longer wants a child with this woman.  He has declined.  This is straightforward."

It's also an oversimplification.  If that's all there was too it, I'd wholeheartedly agree with you.  But that's not all there is to it -- so you can stop arguing that it is.
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 8th, 2006 1:54pm
You keep arguing that he's simply an asshole.  :-)

It hasn't been used to create life.  It's been used to create  a frozen bundle of cells that if implanted might create life, and if flushed will create sewage.  There's no new life here at present.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 8th, 2006 1:56pm
"You keep arguing that he's simply an asshole."

Because based on the complexity of the issue, he is an asshole.  If it were as simple as you describe, he would not.

"It hasn't been used to create life."

It's life.  It's as much life as the bacteria on my computer or my daughters seamonkeys or you or I.  Whether or not it's implanted doesn't change whether it's life.
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 8th, 2006 2:00pm
So in other words this issue is really about abortion for you.  Not using those frozen embryos is tantamount to abortion, and that's why you have a problem with it deep down.

At least we've cleared that up.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 8th, 2006 2:02pm
"which is what she wants."

A big assumption. For all you know, she may not want the guy to be part of the child's life.

I tend to think both of them are asshole, since they seperated.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 8th, 2006 2:06pm
No, I'm pro-choice.  Just because it's life, doesn't make it a person.  Flush all the bacteria, seamonkey's, and embryos you like. 

We've been over the abortion debate a million times and you still screw up on basic terminology.  Why do you even bother to reply.
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 8th, 2006 2:07pm
You mean I screw up in the sense that I don't define all of my terms the same way you do (with definitions that only exist in your own head.)  Sorry for that.  :)
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 8th, 2006 2:08pm
You have some issue with the dictionary definition of life?

"The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism."

Oh wait..  should we include "must be implanted in a woman."

I guess none of us are alive then.

Don't be an idiot.
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 8th, 2006 2:13pm
"in your head"

Not sure whether you are being sarcastic or not, but the definitions he gives are quite commonly held.

That is, a one day old baby is not a person and can be flushed.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 8th, 2006 2:16pm
See? See? What did I tell you Dennis?  Now we have Rick cleverly bringing in the infanticide argument.
Permalink Send private email Ward 
March 8th, 2006 2:21pm
For all the money this woman is probably spending on legal fees to try and force this guy to let her implant the embryos, she could have a) adopted a needy child or b) obtained donor eggs and sperm and had them implanted instead.

This would only be an issue worth examining if these embryos were the last human children on earth.  Since there are plenty o' babies and genetic material available from other sources than this particular woman's own, her energy would be better spent pursuing parenthood some other way.  Methinks perhaps she has an axe to grind with this guy.

My sister has twin girls that were from donor eggs and she considers them hers in every way.  Genes aren't everything.
Permalink  
March 8th, 2006 2:56pm
That last posting was from me.  Accidentally omitted my name.
Permalink Send private email Dana 
March 8th, 2006 2:58pm
"Genes aren't everything."

That argument works both ways -- if the genes aren't anything, then the man should have no argument against his being used.
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 8th, 2006 3:00pm
Of course it goes both way.

That's why both of them are asshole.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 8th, 2006 3:01pm
So Rick, you're saying that the woman who got cancer, had her overies removed, actually made plans to have her own genetic children, is an asshole?  That's harsh.
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 8th, 2006 3:07pm
No, but when the situation changed and she does not give up that's not nice either.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 8th, 2006 3:36pm
but if that's ok, how can you say he is an asshole?
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 8th, 2006 3:37pm
I already answered that in this thread.
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 8th, 2006 3:38pm
Well, it's just different judgements. End of case...
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 8th, 2006 3:53pm
WTF?  So we agree to disagree?!?  What the hell is that.
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 8th, 2006 3:55pm
That's Rick, degenerating into Vineet.
Permalink Send private email Ward 
March 8th, 2006 3:57pm
Figures.  I thought Rick was pro-life, though...  shouldn't he be fighting for the survival of every last frozen embryo?!?
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 8th, 2006 4:01pm
You guys think there is only one 'correct' answer?
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 8th, 2006 4:01pm
We're not arguing about correctness, we're probably arguing more about politeness.
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 8th, 2006 4:03pm
If you need to label me, then I tend to be pro-life.

In China you are forced to have abortion. Here people choose to have abortion. I just don't see how people, men and women, would choose abortion and at the same time practise sex so casually as if it has no consequence.

For teenagers I understand. But for adults I think that's irresponsible.

I agree that on the whole abortion should not be illegal given most abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 8th, 2006 4:27pm
"would choose abortion and at the same time practise sex so casually as if it has no consequence."

Well, not everyone who chooses abortion isn't safe about sex -- sometimes, despite best efforts, it happens.  You can't just pigeon hole everyone into that group.  I believe that your view is more the exception that the rule -- I think some people just make a mistake.  However, there are always stupid people who abuse it.

Anyway, I guess you're not the rabid pro-lifer that I had assumed.  Back to the regular scheduled topic...
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 8th, 2006 4:37pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: March, 2006 Other topics: March, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics