7 March 2006 - 1:58pm
Should a man be forced to be a parent?
I can hear the right-wing murmurs of "of course not!" After all, men have rights!
That's what the European Court for Human Rights ruled, too:
Natallie Evans, 35, from Wiltshire, made an emotional plea to her former fiancé to change his mind and let her use the embryos, which cannot be implanted without his consent [under British law].
Ms Evans was receiving fertility treatment in October 2001 when doctors discovered pre-cancerous cells on her ovaries. She immediately underwent a course of IVF, which produced six embryos fertilised by the sperm of her fiancé, Howard Johnston, before having her ovaries removed to head off the disease.
The next year, however, the couple split and Mr Johnston wrote to the fertility clinic asking it to destroy the stored embryos.
Natalie Bennett, whose post on this is where I saw this story, ponders:
Two judges dissented from the ruling, which makes an appeal to the absolute final court, the Grand Chamber, where it would be heard by 17 judges.
It is what you call a really tough one. A man surely has a right not to have children without consent, so I guess in the end while I have to feel for Evans, he should not be forced into parenthood.
And the suggestion of a "right to parenthood" suggested by the dissenting judge worries me. If there were such a thing, just how far would a society have to go to make it happen?
Well, in the United States, not very far ... when it comes to women. For the right-wing fad here in the United States is to force women who've become pregnant by any means to become parents (or at least give their lives in the endeavor).
Note that in either case there is a fertilized egg -- an embryo in the British case -- so it's not simply a matter of choice before the fact. We're talking about choice after the fertilization. The only difference is that Howard Johnston would not even have to provide of his body to make the baby happen, while women in South Dakota and many other states -- and the whole country, if the forced pregnancy advocates have their druthers -- would have to give of their blood, their energy, their time, their health, their ability to work, their employability, perhaps their lives to fulfill the forced parenthood mandated by the State.
Interesting that, for men, just the possibility of their genes -- which are considered their property -- living beyond their control is enough to preclude any State requirement that the men be forced into that situation, while with women, the genetic property view does not apply, and what's more, the fact that perpetuating the 9-month life-creation process must take place within their own bodies also is not enough to preclude forced pregnancy.
Two different continents. Two different sets of laws. Two different genders. Two different outcomes.
So to sum up:
- Men have rights not to be forced into parenthood.
- Women have no such right.
Any questions?
media girl also blogs at other places.
Similar entries
store
Buy stuff here.
Comments
A though situation for all involved. The women involved is losing her only chance to become pregnant by her own eggs. Not to mention the IVF treatment is extremely expensive. I don't agree with the notion that because she is the women she has all rights to the future of the embryo's. So this man is being forced into fatherhood, after he has expressed that he doesn't want a child in this relationship or with this women. He could possibly be held financially responsible as well.
An unplanned pregnancy is different than an embryo that hasn't been implanted. We are talking about something that hasn't happened yet. I'm not wanting to be insensitive to this women, whom obviously wants a child badly. There are other women who manage to mother without birthing.
Personally I think it is not a fair decision by the courts. After all if the eggs were fertilised under normal conditions, then they would have been born by now and just like normal conception he would have consented and he would not be able to say hold on I changed my mind. So why is he allowed to say that now? I think this is not fair because he has consented in the first place. The fact that the embryos were not fertilised inside the mother's womb should not make a difference because the fact is they are fertilised. I also think given that it is the mother's last chance, him acting like this is unacceptable as well, because in effect he let her believe that she would be a mother but yet now he is taking all her chances away. Should he said it before she would be able to use someone else's sperms and become a mother. This is not a game of one day yes and another day no. I think once the consent is in, it is in.
Shouldn't he be on the horn to the Poodle, begging him to intervene on behalf of the poor little helpless "snowflakes" that can't ever be cute cuddly babies now ?
Tsk.
I think that since this is a UK case, mum's the word.
...that the man's rights trump the woman's? After all, who underwent the more invasive procedure to contribute eggs to the process? Now the man says, "No, they're mine!" and she has no recourse.
I would think that the answer is for each parent to have a 1/2 interest in the property ... which essentially prevents one parent from doing anything with them.
Of course, these common-law theories are a bit useless. As I understand it, this particular law is codified in the British statute.
The real lesson, I think, is that when individuals who are not married choose this kind of procedure, the relevant contract should very plainly specify who holds what property interests in the embryos.
--|PW|--
But since life begins at conception, how can you have "property rights" over a child?
I know give him three eggs and give her three.
Actually, I shouldn't be so flip. I am sure the woman who wants to bear children is feeling mighty low just about now.
...in case that wasn't clear. Sorry, Matsu. I just thought that since both guys are so big on manly-yet-life-affirming policies in the Mid-East, surely they could have a little heart-to-heart about the precious embryos.
I think Shrub should offer to carry one to term himself. I mean, not only would the kid end up with joint citizenship, think of the heartwarming PR he could garner for the GOP in this oh-so-mesmerizing Election Year.
Then, as soon as it's born, he can sign it up for the spanking new improved draft.
(Sorry. I'll stop. Too much coffee.)
I don't really believe life begins at conception ... and aside from some laws introduced by the far right crowd, the law generally doesn't treat a person as a "person" until sometime after birth, although, even under Roe, the "property" gains special status sometime between conception and birth.
--|PW|--
1. Men have rights not to be forced into parenthood.
I would like to know how many men can order the termination of their unborn child, given that its the woman's "choice"?
2. Women have no such right.
Since it's "their bodies, their choice" how many women are being forced into parenthood in the U.S.?
Good point, so long as there is choice, there is no "forcing."
If a woman can make the choice before conception as well as after; and a man can only make it before conception. Where's the equality?
The argument could be made that since a man cannot force an abortion, then he should not be held accountable for child support. If a woman wants all the choice after conception, then she should take all the responsibility afterward as well.
Seriously, it's as if men are to have no say in the process, but are to fork over the money involved.
If you say 'men should make that decision before conception,' then I'll agree with you, yet that makes the standard for men different than the standard for women. Where's the equality in that?
Modify it to say "Her Body, Her Choice, Her Responsibility." If you want it. I prefer "Our Bodies, Our Choice, Our Responsibility" myself. Exclude the man from the choice, you absolve him of responsibility too.
This perpetuates the doublestandard that men can screw coming and going and women are saddled with the responsibility of reproduction. This is a lie. Simply and clearly. Men are equally responsible, any evasion of that responsibility negates his manhood.
Simply because the male's gamete leaves his body before fertilization does not mean that his investment in the whole thing is null. The feminist attitude these days is that men aren't ALLOWED to develop attachments to their offspring until after they leave the womb.
My heart goes out to you.
...to raise money for doobie's vasectomy. Never let it be said that we feminists are not ready, willing and able to provide help to those who need it most.
Don't bother with that, I wouldn't want to see you condescending to do something that might be called 'women's work.'
If the issue is Equality, lets have Equality. I don't see you lining up to register for the Draft, or see you up in arms that women generally get lighter prison sentences than men for the same crimes.
You don't get the benefits without the drawbacks: If you did it'd be superiority.
In simplest terms, choice = responsibility. You make the choice, you chose the responsibility.
That's the problem you're having. You don't see.
So far we have not really delved into whether women and men are "equal."
This is a discussion that needs to take place before many of these issues can every be resolved.
I think that about 80% of the people think men and women can never be equal and I also think that 40% of the people believe that women and men are so fundamentally different that full equality is a fantasy.
The numbers are unscientific and probably don't matter as much as the discussion in what ways women and men can never be equal under the law.
"So to sum up:
1. Men have rights not to be forced into parenthood.
2. Women have no such right."
What exactly are you summing up here?
Actually the UK courts explicitly considered the opposite situation: man with testicular cancer, IVF, divorce etc etc and unsurprisingly decided that exactly the same legal logic would apply. N.B. although this is an ECJ ruling it in no sense harmonises the situation across Europe, there are countries within its remit where the man could not have withdrawn his consent after fertilisation and this ruling does nothing to change that.