Casual Discussion Science Forum @scivillage
WOMEN’S RIGHTS? - Printable Version

+- Casual Discussion Science Forum @scivillage (//www.scivillage.com)
+-- Forum: Culture (//www.scivillage.com/forum-49.html)
+--- Forum: Law & Ethics (//www.scivillage.com/forum-105.html)
+--- Thread: WOMEN’S RIGHTS? (/thread-6918.html)



WOMEN’S RIGHTS? - Syne - Mar 31, 2019

Man Forced To Allow Ex To Use Sperm To Get Pregnant - And Then Pay Child Support

For all we hear about women supposedly not having equal rights to men, it sure seems that in some cases, women have more rights than men.

Case in point: An Arizona court recently ruled that a woman wanting to use her ex-husband’s saved sperm to become pregnant “outweigh[ed]” the man’s desire not to become a father. Due to this court ruling, the man could also be liable for 18 years of child support.

In 2014, Ruby Torres was diagnosed with bilateral breast cancer. She was told that after chemotherapy she likely wouldn’t be able to become pregnant. She and her then-boyfriend John Terrell decided to preserve some embryos so that she might one day be able to become a mother.
...
Terrell, it turns out, originally declined to donate his sperm for the embryos, but changed his mind when Torres suggested she would use an ex-boyfriend’s sperm instead. The court ruled that the couple only agreed to preserve the embryos because of the potential for Torres to be unable to conceive in the future, not for the two to co-parent at some point.

In her dissenting opinion, Judge Maria Elena Cruz wrote that Torres and Terrell signed a contract when they preserved the embryos that both parents would have to provide “express, written consent” for the embryos to be used. Torres even testified acknowledging that “we did sign a contract and we agreed to these provisions.”


The court has now ignored that contract, according to Judge Cruz.
...
The Arizona Republic reports that this case caused state legislators to pass a law last year that would free further individuals in similar situations from being responsible for children conceived against their will. The Republican describes the bill as requiring “that viable embryos from a divorced couple be awarded to the parent who will allow a child to be born” but “also states the other parent has no rights or obligations.”

This, of course, won’t help Terrell, who will likely be on the hook for child support should Torres use the embryos.


So yet again, men only have prophylactic options, whereas women get prophylactic, morning after, adoption, abandonment, and killing options, on top of the legal demand for support, no matter the man's desire to become a father.

And now even though the sperm is legitimately the man's own DNA, he doesn't even get a say in how it's used...even to the extent of making him financially responsible. How would a woman feel if the man were allowed to implant her eggs in another woman without her consent? Much less being financially responsible for it.

Anyone who things this is equality under the law is a misandrist, plain and simple.


RE: WOMEN’S RIGHTS? - Magical Realist - Mar 31, 2019

More incel whining about women..


RE: WOMEN’S RIGHTS? - Syne - Mar 31, 2019

Nope, just another example of sexist inequality.

And just like you ignorantly conflate anything on the right with alt-right, you obviously have the same ignorant problem with true gender equality and incels.
Criticism is not hate or resentment, but you're also apt to conflate those as well. Learn to read and what words actually mean already.

Or just keep proving your ignorance, for all to see.