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

[Mistame]

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

And? It's still my biological material. If I don't want it used to create a child, I should have that right.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

And? It's still my biological material. If I don't want it used to create a child, I should have that right.

Then dont donate your sperm.

[Mistame]

Then dont donate your sperm.

This isn't an argument. Many men have some of their sperm frozen prior to getting a vasectomy. At no point does or should he ever lose his right to decide what happens with it, even to a spouse.

[ipaq]

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.

Unlike the 4 morons that quoted me and the editor that worked out the articles to get more eyeballs... I read the ruling.

[Najnaj]

A judge may arbitrarily choose to force one or more parties to abide by the terms of a verbal contract if proof of said contract exists; however, even with proof of existence a verbal agreement that was not witnessed by a public official does not fit the full legal definition of binding and as such is subject to case-by-case interpretation. In any case where a signed and notarized contract exists however, the written document will always take legal precedence over a verbal agreement (regardless of whether or not the agreement was witnessed by a public official).

Now stop desperately baiting and go back to whatever waste of time you normally engage in.

Like I said, it is determined on if you can prove it or if it is successfully contested. It is not the case here.

Like most people in this thread you probably read the post written by the OP before reading the article, that post is inflammatory garbage. There is never any mention of her wanting to take advantage or anything of the sort in the article. It is simply a woman who wanted to have her own kids who was about to have radiation therapy. She decided to freeze some embryos and then made her one real stupidity, she used a donor that was known to her. OP puts it in our heads that she then blackmails her bf into donating sperm with threats when in reality this is likely not the case. She just wanted her eggs fertilized by anyone pretty much and her bf insisted that it should be him.

[d00mGuArD]

She just wanted her eggs fertilized by anyone pretty much and her bf insisted that it should be him.

And she agreed to that. And there was condition that they both must consent to use them. And she agreed to that as well.

What is hard to imagine, is how idiot was this guy, agreeing to stay with someone that said "i want my eggs to be fertilized by anyone" and he did not instantly walk out the door and disappear forever. He deserves what he got. He should know courts rule almost always in favor of women.

[Machismo]

This is a terrible ruling, since there is a signed contract that states literally the exact opposite of the ruling. One would hope he appeals this, because their contract is quite clear.

[TriHard]

Women's rights, amirite, disgusting.

I hope he doesn't have to pay for that kid.

[Reaper0329]

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 it doesn't fall within the purview of the statute of frauds, it doesn't need to be in writing or notarized to be legally binding. I don't care enough to look up Arizona's codified version of the statute of frauds, but assuming they adopted the common law definition, any contract not touching on one of the statute of frauds areas does not need to be in writing; you only need an offer, acceptance, consideration, and intent to be legally bound.

Source: I have my J.D.

[Najnaj]

None of what you said matters. By legal tradition, written contracts always take precedence when they contradict coinciding verbal agreements. The judge in this case ignored centuries of precedent and a lower court's decision to force a women's rights narrative that was neither necessary nor legally appropriate.

I think you can stop pretending to be a "city attorney" now. Any agreement can be binding and this one has nothing what so ever to do with women's rights.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

This isn't an argument. Many men have some of their sperm frozen prior to getting a vasectomy. At no point does or should he ever lose his right to decide what happens with it, even to a spouse.

This isn't really about simple sperm donations though...both the man and the woman have already agreed to have their biological material used in the creation of a fertilized embryo. Now that the law is in place...both parties will know in advance the terms and conditions before agreeing to the procedure.

Sperm donations are still safe as houses...no one can use them without your permission.

[Mistame]

This isn't really about simple sperm donations though...

They're comparatively equivalent. Up until the moment of implantation, an embryo is equal parts the property of both parties (egg and sperm) and should be treated as such, regardless of the wishes of the other.

both the man and the woman have already agreed to have their biological material used in the creation of a fertilized embryo.

It's a one-size-fits-all law that blatantly dismisses the biological and reproductive rights of one party. Not to mention that decisions like freezing embryos, etc, are almost always made under the premise of, and are contingent on, a continued relationship. The end of the relationship should end any rights to use the embryos, unless an agreement is made to the contrary.

Regardless, I imagine the law will only last as long as it takes for a man to take possession of embryos and leave a woman with no rights to her own eggs.

Now that the law is in place...both parties will know in advance the terms and conditions before agreeing to the procedure.

One could only hope that it makes men stop being imbeciles and doing stupid shit like trusting women with their sperm.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

It's a one-size-fits-all law that blatantly dismisses the biological and reproductive rights of one party. Not to mention that decisions like freezing embryos, etc, are almost always made under the premise of, and are contingent on, a continued relationship. The end of the relationship should end any rights to use the embryos, unless an agreement is made to the contrary.

It's not really that much different than inseminating a woman the old fashioned way. Once the sperm hits the egg...it becomes her choice. This way at least you are off the hook of any obligations to the child you did not want to have. It's the "male abortion" people always talk about.

[ddsad2212]

Actually reading it and the reason why the embryos were fertilized it does make sense. The guy shouldn't in any respect to responsible for the children unless he wants to however. I think context is important on this, though context is the first thing to die when any topic is discussed on the internet.

[XangXu]

Using your womb as a weapon like this is abuse.

[Katchii]

So long as he's not going to be legally, financially, or otherwise responsible for the child that results from this, I don't see anything wrong. He agreed to donate his sperm for this purpose. I don't see why she'd want to, if she ever gets re-married...why wouldn't she just have a child with her new husband? Or was this just some exercise by her to flex her right to use the embryo's IF she wanted to, not necessarily showing she was ACTUALLY going to use them?

If for some reason they try to make him responsible in some way, then it's all kinds of wrong.

[Utinil]

So long as he's not going to be legally, financially, or otherwise responsible for the child that results from this, I don't see anything wrong. He agreed to donate his sperm for this purpose. I don't see why she'd want to, if she ever gets re-married...why wouldn't she just have a child with her new husband? Or was this just some exercise by her to flex her right to use the embryo's IF she wanted to, not necessarily showing she was ACTUALLY going to use them?

If for some reason they try to make him responsible in some way, then it's all kinds of wrong.

You really didn't read the article, did you? She went through cancer treatment which left her infertile. She can't have a child with her new husband. Also the judges said he could be found financially liable.

[Unholyground]

Male privilege right here.

18years of child support.

They would not be able to make him pay anything since he did not consent.

[Katchii]

You really didn't read the article, did you? She went through cancer treatment which left her infertile. She can't have a child with her new husband. Also the judges said he could be found financially liable.

The article doesn't state she's infertile, it says "not likely to bear children after chemotherapy" and there were a couple places which had discussion on whether he was responsible or not. Not sure what the final outcome is as she hasn't had a child yet.

I'm confused how this could be a thing. The contract they both originally signed says both parties have to agree for the embryos to be used, but now a new law allows for it to be awarded to the parent who wants children and that the other parent wouldn't be responsible, but they're also saying that new law doesn't apply to this case because it dien't exist at the time of the trial court ruling or when they signed the original contract so he might be responsible. So which set of rules are they using to make this decision?

There's no way this case is over, there's WAY too much conflicting legal crap going on.

[Malikath]

They would not be able to make him pay anything since he did not consent.

read the fucking article.