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

[Mehrunes]

No, he wants to do that. She agreed to him doing it instead of an ex-boyfriend and then he wants to stop her out of spite. Why are you defending this? Oh, I know. You hate that women have agency.

I am defending this because she also agreed to something. Particularly that in case of them parting ways he'd have to give a separate consent for her using those embryos to get pregnant. No one forced her to agree to that. No one forced her to have embryos just with him. No one forced her not to freeze some unfertilized eggs as well. And guess what, genius, he also has agency. He entertained it by not consenting for her to use those embryos as per their agreement. Because he can decide not to have children with a woman he just divorced. Not having children with your ex-spouses only after the divorce is rather common, actually. I'm not sure which part of this eludes you, but given how you resort to more and more inane straw-men, I suppose it's all of it.

Yes, it's quite clear that you hate that women have agency.

How about you repeat that after you address what I actually said instead of cherry-picking a snipped. Oh, wait, you can't and you're just deflecting since you ran out of arguments after your first post.

Again, genius, men have agency too. Women having agency does not give them the right to override the agency of men. Should be a rather easy concept to comprehend.

[Yingluck]

I am defending this because she also agreed to something.

No, what you're doing is thinking that contracts can be enforced even though it's signing your rights away. I don't think you'd be so quick to apply this is if it was about a man signing a contract that states he will be a personal slave to someone.

Just spill it: You hate women, you don't want women to have any agency. We should all be subjected to what men want.

[Flarelaine]

No, they are not. He doesn't have to be involved at all in the childs life.

Explain, if you can, how and why her desire to be a parent outweighs his desire not to.

Legal citations would be appreciated.

[Yingluck]

Explain, if you can, how and why her desire to be a parent outweighs his desire not to.

Legal citations would be appreciated.

Being a sperm donor can't be called being a parent.

[Flarelaine]

Being a sperm donor can't be called being a parent.

It can if it brings legal and financial obligations with it. And the original question: Explain, if you can, how and why her desire to be a parent outweighs his desire not to.

Legal citations would be appreciated.

[Yingluck]

It can

I'll be clear and concise here: No.

[Katchii]

I can understand the ruling. It's a reproductive right issue and due to the chemotherapy forbidding her from using the embryos is tantamount to informing her that she cannot use the only means available to become pregnant. Inherent rights vs contract law has always been a kind of marshy area.

I think the best outcome of this is the new law they put in gets challenged on the basis of the well being on the child being dependent on the father's income, and it being upheld because the party that chose to use the embryo made an elective decision based on existing knowledge expressly acknowledged by signed contract that the other partner would not be contributing financially if they chose to exercise their reproductive right to have a child as a result. Which would lead to a broader ruling. Then again, it could easily flip back to the current standing argument: that the well being of the child supersedes the father's financial autonomy, and that it is in the interest of the people that the child receive the best possible care. That's what a lot of these rulings come down to: the courts do not view it as man vs cheating/rapacious/conniving/etc woman, but man vs child.

If this had been a regular case, where the man and woman conceived a child normally, I'd be saying he's 100% responsible. As you said though, I think the existence of the contract that she signed acknowledging his autonomy and the ONLY reason she's using the embryo is her inability to have children otherwise is an extenuating circumstance.

She's already agreed to him not necessarily being responsible, she just wants a child and the embryo the two of them saved is the only way she can do that, so I understand her reproductive rights being protected in this case. However, she also stated she's only use it if/when she gets remarried. Given that scenario, there's no reason to make the embryo sperm donor financially responsible "for the good of the child" because the child will already have a father who will financially support it. If the court's really looking out for the child, the child would already be covered.

[Zaktar]

And what law did this contract override? Given how the contractual way of solving the issue of frozen embryos is the preferred method in US for almost three decades, none. Which you'd realize if you looked closely at your argument in your previous post about how contracts like this are nonenforceable "because of basic realities like more children generally being good for a country" which makes no sense at all as this "basic reality" wasn't put in law and the state cannot compel individual citizens to fight the overpopulation.

Fair, it was a weak, poorly researched argument. Glad to see Arizona is coming around to my way of thinking, and have to hope that as this plays out in future, more will!

[Flarelaine]

I'll be clear and concise here: No.

Funny how you strain to derail. You still have not answered the real question: how and why her desire to be a parent outweighs his desire not to?

Legal citations would be appreciated.

[Mehrunes]

No, what you're doing is thinking that contracts can be enforced even though it's signing your rights away. I don't think you'd be so quick to apply this is if it was about a man signing a contract that states he will be a personal slave to someone.

Just spill it: You hate women, you don't want women to have any agency. We should all be subjected to what men want.

Stop spreading your straw-manning bullshit. I'm not really sure why you have such troubles comprehending that, but let's try again: given how they haven't had sex and she's not already pregnant, she does not have any right whatsoever to have a child with this specific man (or any specific man) against his wishes. Trying to compare anything regarding this topic is outright asinine and just shows you have no clue what you're talking about. And, also once again, her having agency doesn't mean her agency overrides his.

Being a sperm donor can't be called being a parent.

Except he's not treated like just a sperm donor.

[Nurasu]

I think I agree with their decision, if you really scrutinize the intent of preserving the embryos in the first place. However, if they come after him for child support, he should come after her in civil court for breach of contract to pay for it.

[Canpinter]

This one of the most stupid things I've ever read.

whats stopping her from adopting is she wants kids?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Given that it's not implanted in her at that point and both parties took part in the procedure, why should it be her choice at that point? The whole point of "her choice" in pro-choice stems from "her body" part. Which obviously does not apply here prior to implantation.

And it's not really the male abortion people always talk about. It's male abortion only in one specific case where the law literally forces you to be a father against your will in the first place.

It works the other way as well...the law is set up so it awards the embryo to whichever parent will allow a child to be born while releasing the other from any rights and obligations.

[Krastyn]

Being a sperm donor can't be called being a parent.

By your logic then, neither can an egg donor. Agreed?

[Najnaj]

A contract is a contract. Writing it down is exactly what gives it legal standing.

..and this is 100% wrong.

Google this instead of argue blatantly false ideas.

- - - Updated - - -

Where are you getting it from? The entire verdict doesn't use the word "verbal" in any context even once throughout its 29 pages.
Nor do the 2 judges rest their case on there being two contracts (of any kind). @Flarelaine

Obviously there was a conversation on why and how before this happened. This constitutes an agreement and in this case a verbal one. This whole case hangs on the fact that he insisted on using his sperm and it can be proven that she was prepared to use someone else's and why.

[Flarelaine]

..and this is 100% wrong.

Google this instead of argue blatantly false ideas.

I'm not doing your job of finding arguments against me. If you have a point, present it.

[Mistame]

This case demonstrates exactly why one should never agree to freezing fertilized embryos. In spite of the fact that a frozen, fertilized embryo is no different than separately frozen sperm and egg, there will always be idiots who follow the same bullshit and half-witted logic these judges did.

Contract or no, the fertilized embryos are genetically part of her, which gives significant heft to the argument that she has a right to reproduce especially if she is shown to be infertile.

To be clear here, the embryos are equal parts of her and him. She has no more rights to them than he does. Her infertility is irrelevant in this regard.

Two of the three presiding judges disagree with you on this.

Point in fact, two of the three residing judges are wrong, as @Mehrunes has pointed out.

It does, he wants her to not be able to have children.

Wrong. He wants her to not have his children, which is his right.

[Najnaj]

I'm not doing your job of finding arguments against me. If you have a point, present it.

What part of "Writing it down is exactly what gives it legal standing" is 100% wrong did you have problems understanding?

[Mehrunes]

Obviously there was a conversation on why and how before this happened. This constitutes an agreement and in this case a verbal one. This whole case hangs on the fact that he insisted on using his sperm and it can be proven that she was prepared to use someone else's and why.

And given how the court doesn't mention it even once despite how significant to the case it would have been, you clearly pulled it out of your ass. Because @Lobosan was wrong. You don't just understand that written contracts take precedence over verbal ones (especially ones with no witnesses), you don't even understand what constitutes a verbal contract to begin with (hint: mere conversation on the issue does not cut it). Also, as per the text of the verdict, your claim that the case hangs on that one fact is also incorrect.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

I find allegations that a judge you disagree with made their decision purely out of emotion rather than drawing from law to be rather hamfisted. Unless you have something very specific to push this argument that one or both of the judges said, it really isn't even worth addressing.

Read the dissenting opinion. Why are the reproductive rights of the woman more important than the choices of the man, and the contract? Logically, how can you explain this?

- - - Updated - - -

There is a verbal agreement between the 2 that the judges decides was more important than a standard agreement that apparently is mandatory to fill in at the clinic.

I didn't see any proof of a verbal agreement that exists, much less says it supercedes the contract??

- - - Updated - - -

It works the other way as well...the law is set up so it awards the embryo to whichever parent will allow a child to be born while releasing the other from any rights and obligations.

Where does it explicitly say that? The article doesn't say anything like that.