Should a man be forced to be a father, or does he have a right to choose?

Question

Case Currently Pending In Texas

A professional, married couple want to wait until their careers are fully on line before becoming parents, but don't want to gamble on an oops taking place. In order to avoid this, he has a vasectomy, but first they doctors harvest eggs from her and fertilize them with his sperm. They are than frozen until the time when they are ready to become parents.

Before this happens, the marriage falls apart and there's a divorce. Should the woman be awarded the fertilized eggs, allowing her to get pregnant at any time, and thus collecting child support from him, or should they be destroyed?

These eggs are not within her, so she's not being forced to have an abortion. She also not being forced to have children. Should he than be forced to be a father, tying him financially to her for as long as she decides to use the eggs, at 18-23 years per child?

It shoudl be noted that at the time they created the eggs, they both signed a form saying that if there was a divorce, the eggs would be destroyed or donated to a childless couple. She is trying to get that agreement resended.

Answer 1

By having a vasectomy, the man's frozen sperm is his only chance to have children. He should think strongly about this, because once he gets older he might regret that he is alone and childless. He shouldn't have the eggs destroyed unless he is absolutely positive that he doesn't want children --ever. Children are a blessing from God, not a financial drain. We pay for expensive cars, mortages on houses, cell phones and a bunch of other things, but Nothing could be more precious than bringing up another human being and watching them bloom with pride. To heck with the money. What else are we going to do with our dollars that is more important? However, if the man doesn't consent, the women shouldn't touch those eggs and just find another man to have children with.

Answer 2

Well I think that the frozen items are marrital property and that they should both get half. At this time though it should also be said that if either party chooses to use the eggs to become pregnate or have a child that the other is no longer bound by the others part to support them in any way. It wouldn't be any different if I wanted to become a single mother and went out and got pregnate, the sperm is from a guy that may not want to be a father but guess what he is now and He doesn't have to have a financial obligation to that child but he could if I wanted to be selfish about it.
If she feels that she is to the point that she will be unable to find another partner to have childern with than she should be able to use her eggs. She just shouldn't be able to get any money. It wouldn't be any different if they donated them would it. They would technically be parents but they would have no obligation to that child at all. SO why is this so different.

Answer 3

Firstly I am glad I am not involved my husband and I are trying to have a child but it looks like it is not going to happen. Why in the first place did this all happen if it was wrong to have a child in the first place it is not going to get better down the way a child does not fix things. I feel sorry for the child that is going to be born from this and any thime anyone has a chance to be in a child's life what a wonderful way it would be. Does the mother not fear the father suing for full custody is she aware that he can do this. Also if you were in michigan and she was married she could use your sperm and the babies would be considered her and her current husbands this is such a puzzle but know as a father you do have rights of custody and the mother should be made aware of these I believe either sign off of them or step up

Answer 4

This is one of the many scenarios that forcefully demonstrates the truthfulness of Jeremiah 10:23: "I know, O Lord, that a man's life is not his own; it is not for man to direct his steps." I am also reminded of a line in the movie Jurassic Park when, in connection with bringing dinosaurs into existence in the modern age, the character Ian Malcolm says to the character John Hammond at lunch: "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could they didn't stop to think if they should."

Man gets so hung up in all the things he can do that he never even considers whether a thing ought to be done. Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should. Now look: a situation pregnant with problems and the selfishness which began it continues to the bitter end. This now-divorced man and woman tried to cover all the bases. Did they use reasoning and principles? No, they tried to do it within the framework of their own selfishness. Their very foundation was flawed. And now the consequences are disastrous.

Their attitudes are the exact opposite of the one spoken of at Psalm 15:4: the person who ". . . keeps his oath even when it hurts"

The paper they signed: well, that's as good as the integrity of the two who signed it. Donate the eggs to someone else? When you're in a hole, the best thing to do is just stop digging. These two are walking poster children for selfishness and me-ism. I wonder what made the marriage fall apart. Probably selfishness.

I have no answer for this one. But I do know that for those who say scriptures are outdated and irrelevant; for those who say that modern man is much too advanced and sophisticated to listen to ancient ethics in some dusty book, it seems to me that if they had discerned and applied just a few principles from that dusty book, they could have avoided this altogether.

Hannah J Paul

Answer 5

Every man should have the right to decide whether he wants to be a father or not, so she should allow the eggs to be donated to childless couples who cannot conceive on their own. I would assume that she is still capable of conceiving, so she could always have children with another man. If she is so intent on having YOUR children, why did she not work harder to keep the marriage stable? If the courts do award the eggs to her, she should be treated as a single mother, without expecting support from you. However, I realize that this might not be as simple as it seems, as I am sure you would want to know the only biological children you will ever have. It's a very difficult situation for you to be in, and I can only hope that the courts decide not to give her the eggs.

Answer 6

Oh boy! I always wanted to be a judge! Or at least play at being one. Put the hammer down!

First: harvesting the eggs and fertilizing them. This is strictly an ego-driven act. This pair want to save their obviously (in their minds) superior genes for later so that they can have sex now but not trouble themselves with having children, even accidentally. In my opinion, the vasectomy was a good idea, because this pair is not really interested in rearing children. I rule the fertilized eggs should be destroyed. Let this woman have children with someone else, or adopt a child, if she really wants to rear a child.

Second: paternal rights. Clearly this man has no right to require this woman to bear his children to pass on his genes nor to remain barren. It is entirely her choice and her responsibility. Neither does the woman have any responsibility to seek his opinion or cooperation. He is, de facto, not the father, no matter how she might become pregnant in the future. The mere fact that his sperm might become involved does not create the circumstances of fatherhood.

Third: child support. I do not know whether the judge has the latitude, in Texas, to decide this, but I am going to assume he does. So far, religious zealots aside, there are no children. If she decides to become pregnant, in either the old-fashioned way or artificially, it no longer has anything to do with this man except his genetic code. Since the man has no say in the possible future pregnancy, it is likewise not his responsibility to pay for the rearing of her potential future offspring. He should not be considered the father for any purposes, including rearing the child (unless they remarry) or paying for the rearing of the child.

Therefore, my ruling: 1. Destroy the eggs in the best interest of all parties including the potential children. 2. The man is not to be considered the father, and he accrues none of the privileges or responsibilities of fatherhood. 3. The man is not responsible for paying child support in any form.

Bang!

Answer 7

No, it should not be aloud for her to get pregnant without his consent. It is not about the child support, it is about a child that is not wanted by one of the parents.
Since the man has the same right, he could request the eggs and have them implanted into another woman since he had a vasectomy. To make it simple for everybody involved, those eggs should be destroyed. Problem solved.

Answer 8

Men should have a right to choose. Women have had it for years.

If the wife deeply wants this man's baby, she can offer to pay for it. Genes are valuable for sure. And if it's a purchase, support wouldn't make any sense at all.

As far as destroying the eggs, that would be sad. But it would certainly be final if that is what they are aiming for.

Answer 9

I do not think you should be responsible since you divorced her. I can not understand her concept of wanting a child from you after a divorce. If she can not produce eggs, then she needs to adopt. There are so many kids that need a home.

Hopefully the judge will not only find in your favor, but will put something in the books to prevent this from happening to anybody else. (If there is not already)

Good Luck and God Bless You. :)

Answer 10

Good intentions are only intentions if they are not followed up with. The woman could have a child without the father being responsible and she has exclusive custody. Not having to battle an ex on kidraising is worth it's weight in gold. She could have the child and ruin three lives with the crap that would inssue. Or they could do the ethical thing and contribute their child to a good life as they committed to when love was involved.