Unbelievable! You’re absolutely right. “If a divorced man doesn’t want his EX-wife to have his children, then she shouldn’t be able to. . . period” I can’t believe they’re having the discussion either. Imagine if it were reversed and a man was demanding that a woman have his children… I bet that would get ugly fast!

[...] Divorced Dads Matter - Blog Archive - Debate Over What Amounts to Men’s Reproductive Rights (v… [...]

Embryos are not children, nonetheless if you DO consider the consent form a contract you have the following.

If egg harvest were painless and had no adverse medical effect it would be a “walk away” - no harm done. But she’s already went through an extremely unpleasant and damaging medical procedure while all he had to do was go into a room with porn and do what comes natural for 10 minutes. The hormone treatments a woman has to go through for IVF accelerate infertility, accelerate physical aging and can even kill her.

As a contract, she’s already paid consideration, so he is essentially breaking the contract. Also interesting is that he withheld information about *his* infertility problems at the time of marriage. Deception is his weaselly game.

There’s no actual downside for him to letting her use the embryos - which at her age are unlikely to take anyway. So he’ll have a child “out there” - big deal. As a Darwinian matter that makes him and his ancestors better off even if he later has children with someone else.

If he really were a “standup guy” like the blonde bubblehead claims him to be, he would not be doing this. He’s either an immature brat or a vicious abuser. If she weren’t black would this have been an issue where the tv folks sided with him? Probably not. Again THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE FOR HIM to let her have them.

To reveal my biases: my wife was infertile and knew it when we got married. She didn’t inform me. We when through 3x IVF without success. I still want children. It won’t be with her.

Stuart,

I would consider them having gone so far as to create the embryo’s to have been a joint decision. That she has “paid” more than him in consideration isn’t really a valid argument. This is early on in the process of IVF. I won’t claim to be familiar with the IVF process but isn’t the hormone treatments related to implantation, not the egg harvest?

Aside from that the “paid consideration” that is being spoken about is a minimal amount compared to the overall costs of the “contract” (Child).

As to there being no downside for him, you haven’t been paying attention to recent court decisions. He is liable for child support for 18-22 years. She cannot chose to waive this requirement, if the parent/child ever become reliant on state supported living, or if she just feels like it at some point in the future, he will be required to pay child support, pay all historical child support immediately, be banned from travelling untili the instantaneous arrears are made current, and be thrown into jail if he can’t.

As for there just being a child “out there”, some guys are ok with that. Others, well, not so much. You can’t judge his preferences and feelings on the matter based on your own. By the same reasoning, it is a logical fallacy called an “ad hominem” to attack a persons character simply because you disagree with the opinion.

If the woman says “he is a standup guy”, who are you to disagree? I also have to say, I haven’t seen phrasing like this; “He’s either an immature brat or a vicious abuser.” outside of extremist feminist ravings. Not so much the “immature brat” part but the “vicious abuser”. Can you realistically portray a man’s desire to not be tied to an ex-partner for 20+ years by way of children with a person who commits physical abuse? That’s my only understanding for the phrase “vicious abuser”.

As to your wife deceiving you regarding her infertility; I’m sorry. That is unconscionable.

Arby, forever the voice of reason. One thing that I didn’t point out in the post, b/c I was curious to see if anyone would bring it up was Juliet’s off-handed dismissal of adoptive parents as “real parents.” I was dumbfounded. Sacks made an excellent point. Do we really believe that sharing DNA makes someone a “real parent.” Give me a break.

Interesting, I hadn’t actually read anything into the dismissal of adoption, other than to note that the one anchor got very hot under the collar about the whole idea that waiting before having a child was her making a choice. Seems kinda self evident but then there is a lot of people that don’t accept personal responsibility for their choices.

I don’t know. I think Sacks makes an excellent point for adoption for those people who would really like to be parents. At the same time, I, personally, am ambivalent. I would like to have another child, but if it wasn’t biologically mine, I don’t think I would adopt, I would just go without.

I agree with your implication though, biology does not make one a parent.

The mother is not thinking in the best interests of these possible children. The father is not their and not interested so why push the issue. Children need both their parents and forcing someone against their will is not right.