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

[Malikath]

The problem here is that there are 2 "contracts", one written and one verbal.

and the solution is that only one of them matters, the written contract as it was notarized.
any contract without either a present notary or authorization from a notary are null.

[d00mGuArD]

All I want to know is if the law applies to both genders.
Can that man use the embryos without the consent of that woman?

Then the problem is solved. If you break up, have the embryos send to your home. Don't leave them in the hands of a clinic

[Mistame]

This would be correct if the intention was for the couple to have kids and the contract was not a standard one that everyone signed.

It is correct and the contract reinforces that fact.

We have gone over this many times already and he is the one who insisted that he fertilize the eggs knowing full well that the reason was that she had a fair chance of becoming infertile in the near future.

What? He did not "insist" anything. He declined and then agreed after she threatened going to her ex-boyfriend for a donor.

The written one is a standard contract made by the clinic and the verbal agreement they had was that he was fertilizing her eggs so safeguard against future infertility due to radiation treatments.

You're describing the reason behind the agreement, not a "verbal contract". And the reason is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if she can't have children, etc. She has no more right to use the embryos than he does to have them destroyed.

He is stupid and an ahole trying to go back on his word.

This is nonsense. The end of a relationship cancels any "agreements" made while under the premise of staying together. This is even demonstrated in the article by the fact that during the divorce, he asked the court to prevent her from using the embryos and the court ordered them to be donated to a third party. The appeals court is in the wrong here, period.

[Najnaj]

It is correct and the contract reinforces that fact.



What? He did not "insist" anything. He declined and then agreed after she threatened going to her ex-boyfriend for a donor.



You're describing the reason behind the agreement, not a "verbal contract". And the reason is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if she can't have children, etc. She has no more right to use the embryos than he does to have them destroyed.



This is nonsense. The end of a relationship cancels any "agreements" made while under the premise of staying together. This is even demonstrated in the article by the fact that during the divorce, he asked the court to prevent her from using the embryos and the court ordered them to be donated to a third party. The appeals court is in the wrong here, period.

You are making the mistake of thinking that this had anything to do with them being a couple. THe entire judgement is hanging on that this is not the case. What came out in the trial is that he knew that it had very little to do with him.

- - - Updated - - -

So you were in the room in know how much attention they paid to the contract? Wow, you really get around.

Given that the verbal agreement that no one is contesting goes in a very different direction than the written standard contract .....

Not exactly rocket science.

- - - Updated - - -

and the solution is that only one of them matters, the written contract as it was notarized.
any contract without either a present notary or authorization from a notary are null.

Only if one of them is contested.

- - - Updated - - -

The article quite clearly states that he would likely have a financial obligation to pay child support. You may want to try some reading comprehension before throwing around insults on a gaming forum.

It does not. The judges note that it is a point of concern that there is a risk for him to become financially responsible.

[Acidbaron]

Oh this is good this is perfect, remember folks if you're anti-abortion and voted for those laws.

You guys are for laws that ban people from abort when raped so, so jokes on you now.

[Dziubla]

"Italso states the other parent has no rights or obligations."


I hope that means he doesn't have to pay child support.

Even if he doesn't have to now, she might change her mind later, and all the laws and contracts in the world won't help him. M'lady needs help, m'lady gets help. How many prenups have been thrown out in courts, just so the woman can financially rape the guy? A lot. Our entire "Patriarchal" Society is built around helping women with whatever they want. Rules change as they see fit, to whatever benefits the woman the most at the moment.

This case is just another example of our bullshit "equality", where only the women matter, and the men...screw the men.

[markos82]

Ignorance is bliss

Well I hope I never find out....

The problem here is that there are 2 "contracts", one written and one verbal. No one is contesting this bit. The written one is a standard contract made by the clinic and the verbal agreement they had was that he was fertilizing her eggs so safeguard against future infertility due to radiation treatments. She offered to get the sperm from someone else and he is the one who insisted that she use his.

The way I see it is that the entire situation is stupid but at least she is just stupid. He is stupid and an ahole trying to go back on his word. He knew full well what he was doing and after it turns out that she is indeed infertile after her cancer treatment he tries to go back on his word using a random generic contract that no one payed much attention too at the time.

Only one matters, written one. That's the point. Second one isn't important. Also he can say that this was entrapment. Basically give me your "swimmers" if you don't ill go drain balls from my ex. He was in Checkmate position and lost....

He isn't an asshole but he sure is stupid, well actually not really stupid because he did protected himself or so he thought. They had a legal binding, a contract which she broke. No he did not, the contract is like I said binding, if the contract says she/he can only use fertilized eggs if both agree or if they stay together how is he going back on his word? The only one going back on their word is her. How is that generic contract?

One will mentally scar you for the rest of your life, the other won't. I know for sure which one I'd rather.

Especially since if you're raped, you might still end up with a baby and be on the hook for the money. source: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/n...port/14953965/

Well there are shrinks that earn millions by listening to stories, in this case this guy might end up paying for the kid he didn't want, now imagine that she gets 2 kids or more ( because they never put one embryo back but more so there are more chances one will work ), imagine the money drain 2-3 or more kids can have.

This is not the case of someone being raped and ending up pregnant, this is a case where woman is using other persons DNA material for her own gain.The only person getting "raped" is this guy.

[Mistame]

You are making the mistake of thinking that this had anything to do with them being a couple. THe entire judgement is hanging on that this is not the case. What came out in the trial is that he knew that it had very little to do with him.

Any agreement made while together implies a premise of being together. This is basic logic. Throw in the fact that during the divorce, his consent (per the contract) was explicitly revoked and that makes all other arguments irrelevant. The court of appeals is in the wrong. Period.

It does not. The judges note that it is a point of concern that there is a risk for him to become financially responsible.

Stop down-playing this. Given the way family and child courts operate, his obligation to pay child support is all but guaranteed.

[Najnaj]

Only one matters, written one.

This is incorrect.

[derpkitteh]

this is straight up fucked and oughta be illegal.

[Najnaj]

Any agreement made while together implies a premise of being together. This is basic logic. Throw in the fact that during the divorce, his consent (per the contract) was explicitly revoked and that makes all other arguments irrelevant. The court of appeals is in the wrong. Period.



Stop down-playing this. Given the way family and child courts operate, his obligation to pay child support is all but guaranteed.

..and also incorrect. This is a pretty unique case so we do not know how it will play out...if it plays out. The judges specifically said that this had nothing to do with them being a couple and there seems to be no disagreement on that point.

[Mistame]

..and also incorrect.

Nope.

The judges specifically said that this had nothing to do with them being a couple and there seems to be no disagreement on that point.

What the judges think or say is irrelevant to the fact that they, and their ruling, are wrong. Period.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

All I want to know is if the law applies to both genders.
Can that man use the embryos without the consent of that woman?

Then the problem is solved. If you break up, have the embryos send to your home. Don't leave them in the hands of a clinic

Yes:

State law now requires that viable embryos from a divorced couple be awarded to the parent who will allow a child to be born. It also states the other parent has no rights or obligations.

The problem with this specific case is that the agreement pre-dates the law...so the man could potentially still be held financially responsible for the child. I think a decent lawyer could resolve that though.

[Najnaj]

Nope.



What the judges think or say is irrelevant to the fact that they, and their ruling, are wrong. Period.

haha, ok then ...

[Najnaj]

It's cute that you're trying to argue semantics, but you have no idea what you're talking about. A verbal contract is non binding, a written contract is legally binding and takes full precedent under the law. Furthermore, the judge and the article both acknowledge that there is a legitimate risk that the male would be forced to pay child support. You have no argument or leg to stand on. Away with you.

- - - Updated - - -



Are you going to argue that judges are infallible now? I can't wait to see the mental gymnastics you try to pull for that one.

...and this is again totally incorrect. A verbal contract is very much binding. It is also hard to prove if contested but this is not the case here. All this stuff is shit you can simply google and not having to have me explain it to you.

[Mistame]

Yes:

State law now requires that viable embryos from a divorced couple be awarded to the parent who will allow a child to be born. It also states the other parent has no rights or obligations.

Honestly, that law is garbage. Until implantation, the embryo is equal parts the property of both parties. The law should read something to the effect of, "A couple who is divorced or otherwise separated must both consent to the use of viable embryos. The party not using the embryos has no rights or obligations. Additionally, either party can move to have the embryos destroyed." But then, it was probably some half-wit pro-lifer who wrote the law, given the "will allow a child to be born" bit.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Honestly, that law is garbage. Until implantation, the embryo is equal parts the property of both parties. The law should read something to the effect of, "A couple who is divorced or otherwise separated must both consent to the use of viable embryos. The party not using the embryos has no rights or obligations. Additionally, either party can move to have the embryos destroyed." But then, it was probably some half-wit pro-lifer who wrote the law, given the "will allow a child to be born" bit.

I think their version of the law is better. It allows for the one that wants to use the embryos to do so while completely severing the rights and obligations of the other parent. The only addition I would add, and this may be in the full law, is that if the other party wants to have those rights and obligations...they can. But whatever choice they make should be irreversible.

[Najnaj]

Lol, please do continue explaining to a city attorney how a non-notary witnessed verbal contract is in any way shape or form legally binding or would ever take precedent over a written contract. I'll wait, armchair lawyer <3

If you were a lawyer you would know that a verbal agreement is very much binding as long as you can prove it.

[Mistame]

I think their version of the law is better. It allows for the one that wants to use the embryos to do so while completely severing the rights and obligations of the other parent. The only addition I would add, and this may be in the full law, is that if the other party wants to have those rights and obligations...they can. But whatever choice they make should be irreversible.

I don't think anyone should be able to use the biological material of someone else, especially in the creation of a child, without their permission. The way it's currently written is the equivalent of giving a former spouse the right to use your sperm/egg to create a child.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I don't think anyone should be able to use the biological material of someone else, especially in the creation of a child, without their permission. The way it's currently written is the equivalent of giving a former spouse the right to use your sperm/egg.

But you have no obligation to the child...essentially becoming a sperm or egg donor