Faith in Humanity drops another notch.Follow

I think the "man" (I use this term loosely) in this case needs a bullet to the head . This "Don't want the financial and emotional responsibility of blah blah blah" is utter crap.

He is single-handedly denying a woman the right to bear children. Once these embryos are destroyed.... as a male of the species I can't even fathom the kind of loss one would be feeling at that point.

How is he denying her anything? That there is a world view from the vantage point of head firmly implanted in ***.

Umm, go out and have more eggs harvested and get a man who is open to the idea to donate sperm for embryo making. What is the issue here? Good on the court for making an intelligent and rational decision. If the man wants nothing to do with it, he shouldn't have to have anything to do with it. What makes her so special that she should get to decide fully what to do with something that takes both of them to create?

F'ucking liberal.

I got the impression from the article that the cancer treatments left her infertile and those eggs are her only shot at being a mother.

Still, I must say, sorry about her luck. I don't see how that gives her the right to make the father have a child that he neither wants nor cares for.

that's why you get that kinda **** in writing

That would presuppose that you could separate the eggs from the sperm. The embryos, zygotes, whatever, are already fertilized and ready to be implanted.

When I give up the goo I never ask for it back, that's just tacky. I'm in agreement with Dana, though, in that the final eggs one is ever going to produce should be important enough to put something in writing. As it stands I can't see her being allowed to use the embryos, although I think it's a ******* thing for him to not allow her to raise a child alone. Who am I to say, though, maybe he's just opposed to bringing a child into a world wothout Kirby Puckett.

Ah, but it's not a pregnancy. He wouldn't get to shoot any living children produced by the union, either; but that's not the issue.

I agree that his sperm is his sperm. There's no way to argue it there.

But his excuse for the matter is pathetic. "Oh noez, $$ spent on kid I don't want with her!!!11!!" He should have thought about that before the eggs were fertilized in the first place, when they weren't even married at the time. The irresponsibility (on both sides, she had to sign the forms too) is mindboggling.


All the while, he is deliberately (and I feel maliciously) not allowing her to have children that would be at least partially her own. He can create new sperm, get other women preggers and have his family over yonder- She doesn't have that choice any longer.

Get a court order barring the two from seeing/talking to each other, and remove any financial responsibility he might have incurred. They can go their separate ways, end of discussion.

I didn't read the article. I figure if you're going to quote from it anyway you will have quoted the relavent f'ucking parts.

That being said, **** on her. She should have frozen a couple of eggs, not made embryos with all of them. It's not like she was married to the guy, in which case it would have been marital property in a divorce and split 50/50.

Tough noogies.

Um, no.. she should have thought about it. The law was always on his side, stating that consent from both parties would be needed at each stage of the IVF procedure. She is the one asking for special consideration outside the law.

I would like to take this opportunity to let anyone who might have been wondering know that I will never take my sperm back after I've given it to you. Not under any circumstances, even if I'm drunk.

Shrimpin Boat Cap'in

Good god man, what kind of hookers are you using?