Arizona woman can use fertilized embryos to get pregnant without ex's consent

[Jotaux]

She wanted to have her own kids and preserved embryos prior to cancer treatment that would make her infertile. She offered to use another donor but boyfriend did not like this... We have no reason to think that she will hold him responsible for the kids IF there are kids. What exactly is the problem here besides the OPs remarkably stupid use of the work "literally".

Probably the legal document they signed.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

No it specifically says:

Yeah, that's my fault for skimming the article instead of reading the whole thing.

[IIamaKing]

Not really sure what the big deal is.

[gaymer77]

Well she did sign a contract saying she wouldn't if he didn't agree. I think she should honor that, or like you said not make him responsible at all.

Seeing how she signed a contract saying that if they split that she (or he) would not get custody of the embryos yet now she's trying to get them, I think she probably will go after him for child support and want to co-parent since she also went on to say after the ruling that he could have as much involvement in the child's life as he wanted.

How the fuck is that equivalent to being raped?

The fact that he didn't agree to the embryos being used if they split up. He only agreed to using his sperm because had he not she was going to use her ex-boyfriend's sperm to conceive a child that HE would be raising with her. Forcing him to have a child with a woman that she's no longer with is the same logic behind a man suing a woman who wants to have an abortion to force her to give birth to it for him. Exactly the same principle in that. Rape isn't just someone being sexually assaulted. Rape is asserting control over someone's life without their permission or desire to have it done.

[Spectral]

"It is, of course, true that if Torres were awarded the embryos, Terrell could be legally responsible to financially support the children," the ruling states. "That reality is the same today as it was when the parties executed the (in vitro fertilization) agreement nearly four years ago."

This is really the only issue I take. In no sensible, coherent reason for Terrell to be liable for the children.

Well, aside from the obviously degenerate nature of the whole affair, I suppose. Most of that is really between the individuals rather than a policy concern though.

[Cerus]

Whether the courts will legally hold him responsible (family courts likely will since they don’t even allow DNA evidence or the wishes of the parents in decisions) isn’t the point.

He is being forced into fatherhood. Being let off the hook is all fine and dandy but not every man is a deadbeat dad. His moral obligations may prevent him from washing his hands of his blood child. Abortion activists say the government can’t force a woman to be a mother. Yet they can force a man to be a father and pay for it whether he likes it or not.

Equality my ass.

[Najnaj]

Probably the legal document they signed.

He specifically asked to be the donor after she offered to use someone else ...

If that isn't a deal breaker I don't know what is.

[IIamaKing]

The fact that he didn't agree to the embryos being used if they split up.

Thats not rape. Its a breach of contract. Not even sure thats the case once a Judge rules.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I say if the courts are going to nullify the pre-existing contract...the new state law should be applied to allow her to keep the embryos...but remove the "father" from any parental obligations. That seems like the fairest way to handle the situation.

[IIamaKing]

He is being forced into fatherhood.

No, he isnt. SOme of his genetic material was used to produce a child he will(presumably) have nothign to do with.

[Najnaj]

Seeing how she signed a contract saying that if they split that she (or he) would not get custody of the embryos yet now she's trying to get them, I think she probably will go after him for child support and want to co-parent since she also went on to say after the ruling that he could have as much involvement in the child's life as he wanted.



The fact that he didn't agree to the embryos being used if they split up. He only agreed to using his sperm because had he not she was going to use her ex-boyfriend's sperm to conceive a child that HE would be raising with her. Forcing him to have a child with a woman that she's no longer with is the same logic behind a man suing a woman who wants to have an abortion to force her to give birth to it for him. Exactly the same principle in that. Rape isn't just someone being sexually assaulted. Rape is asserting control over someone's life without their permission or desire to have it done.

Just read the entire article you posted. The guy insisted that they use his sperm and now she can no longer produce eggs.

[McFuu]

She wanted to have her own kids and preserved embryos prior to cancer treatment that would make her infertile. She offered to use another donor but boyfriend did not like this... We have no reason to think that she will hold him responsible for the kids IF there are kids. What exactly is the problem here besides the OPs remarkably stupid use of the work "literally".

If she decides to attempt to have kids, which somehow is now unilaterally her decision against the contract they signed, he would be financially responsible for the child.

[Najnaj]

If she decides to attempt to have kids, which somehow is now unilaterally her decision against the contract they signed, he would be financially responsible for the child.

We do not know that.

[gaymer77]

He specifically asked to be the donor after she offered to use someone else ...

If that isn't a deal breaker I don't know what is.

More like he was forced into being the donor because if he didn't she would have used some man she used to date. Would you prefer your current wife/girlfriend get pregnant with some other man's child while you are together and that man is now part of your family unit and will be forever? Sorry but if I was in that situation I'd have done the same thing he did which is agree to using my sperm instead of allowing some other man to be in our lives forever because she wants to have a child.

[Toppy]

Not really sure what the big deal is.

He could have to pay child support if she chose to make him despite having no say in whats going on, despite the original contract saying he would have to agree to it.

[gaymer77]

Just read the entire article you posted. The guy insisted that they use his sperm and now she can no longer produce eggs.

Try rereading it yourself. He only agreed to that because she was going to use her ex-boyfriend's sperm instead if he said no.

[Bhanzai]

This is literally the equivalent of him being raped. The embryos should be destroyed not given to her just because SHE wants them. He agreed to using his sperm to fertilize the eggs because she wanted to use her ex-boyfriend's sperm instead of her husbands because HE didn't want to do it. The courts are wrong in this decision. This woman should not have custody of the embryos under any circumstances. And if you read the article, she only wants to implant them if she REMARRIES SOMEONE ELSE. That's bullshit!

Wow you're a drama queen. No, its not the same as rape since willingly gave his sperm because he didn't want her to use an ex's. Guy is a moron. "honey, if you don't use your sperm I'll get some one else's!" should have been the first hint that he needed to leave. He had complete control the situation and made the wrong decision, hence why he's a moron.

[McFuu]

We do not know that.

And because that state law isn't applicable in this case, Terrell could end up having to pay child support if Torres gives birth to a child. Torres testified that Terrell could decide if he wants to be involved in the child's life.

"It is, of course, true that if Torres were awarded the embryos, Terrell could be legally responsible to financially support the children," the ruling states. "That reality is the same today as it was when the parties executed the (in vitro fertilization) agreement nearly four years ago."

The court nullified the section of the contract that said he has to agree to implantation, specifically stating "her right to procreate supersedes his right to choose."

She has unilateral choice in attempting to become pregnant and he has zero recourse regardless of outcome.

[Socialhealer]

Breach of contract, if i had to pay for the child after the court just went LUL your contracts mean nothing!

I'd just wait till i'm old and dying and drive a car around like GTA deal as much damage as humanly possible(to property not people) to the town and just say, good one you fucked me over for thousands I've done millions in damages, next time try not being so corrupt!

[Sormine]

This is literally the equivalent of him being raped.

Boy Howdy is this the fucking hottest take I've read today.