I think if you're married, sperm donation should be a joint decision or not done.
Same as if this woman decided to be a surrogate mother for someone else - it should be a joint decision or not at all.
Of course his body is his own, as his hers - so no legal sanction should ensue. But, when done without consent I think it is unreasonable behaviour and should be grounds for divorce.
Yea! I'm in a minority!
I personally disagree. You do of course have the right to your own opinion and nobody can change it to you, but I am genuinely intrigued; can I ask why?
If the relationship is such that either party needs to control the other using legislation then it isnt a relationship worth pursuing.
I agree with this. They disagree to the extent that she is essentially taking legal action against her own husband, hardly the sign of a happy marriage.
I think if you're married, sperm donation should be a joint decision or not done.
Same as if this woman decided to be a surrogate mother for someone else - it should be a joint decision or not at all.
Of course his body is his own, as his hers - so no legal sanction should ensue. But, when done without consent I think it is unreasonable behaviour and should be grounds for divorce.
Yea! I'm in a minority!
My balls, my sperm, my biological business. How this is even up for debate is amazing. If I put my money away in my bank account for a rainy day, as far as I am concerned that's my income I've earned for my savings and my purposes. If you want to divorce me for protecting some of my squiddly diddlies in a private frozen facility, I'd be quite happy to divorce your overly entitled borderline crazy butt. I won't even ask for an ovary in the settlement.
I personally disagree. You do of course have the right to your own opinion and nobody can change it to you, but I am genuinely intrigued; can I ask why?
/snip/
Well I think many things that are perfectly fine when single should not be done in marriage without your partner's consent.
Running up huge debts, booking a personal holiday to Las Vegas, visiting a prostitute.
There shouldn't be laws preventing partners taking actions unreasonable to their partners - but I think it is reasonable for divorce petitions to ensue.
It will be different for different partners of course and can work both ways. Say one partner has a known phobia of tattoos yet the other insists on getting one. In that case I think it could be reasonable for either side to sue for divorce.
You seem to have reduced the abortion debate to a property argument.
If people choose to have sex and create a living being the rights and wrongs of what happens to that living being fall to be determined according to different principles than 'who owns the genetic material'.
No I'm just pointing out it isn't really considered a slippery slope if it leads to something less severe occurring as a result. Slippery slope typically means something leading to ever more significant and perhaps undesirable effects (i.e. going downwards), whereas this is talking about one particularly extreme and clearly erroneous proposal leading to something less extreme (something higher up the slope). A slippery slope would be the man being able to control an abortion possibly leading to the woman being able to control his sperm.
Well I think many things that are perfectly fine when single should not be done in marriage without your partner's consent.
Running up huge debts, booking a personal holiday to Las Vegas, visiting a prostitute.
There shouldn't be laws preventing partners taking actions unreasonable to their partners - but I think it is reasonable for divorce petitions to ensue.
It will be different for different partners of course and can work both ways. Say one partner has a known phobia of tattoos yet the other insists on getting one. In that case I think it could be reasonable for either side to sue for divorce.
So irrational fears should prevent individual rights in your view? Wow.
Last I checked tattoos posed no threat to anyone except the person who has them and then it's an issue brought on by unhygienic standards or tools. If someone chooses to get body art, that's their right as an individual with their own right to decide regarding their body. If you are going to divorce someone over something like that. I'd be surprised if you could find anyone to marry you in the first place if the idea of sharing and compromise in a relationship is so foreign and the constraints within it so strict.
Last I checked tattoos posed no threat to anyone except the person who has them and then it's an issue brought on by unhygienic standards or tools. If someone chooses to get body art, that's their right as an individual with their own right to decide regarding their body. If you are going to divorce someone over something like that. I'd be surprised if you could find anyone to marry you in the first place if the idea of sharing and compromise in a relationship is so foreign and the constraints within it so strict.
Nobody argued with that and I agree that someone who'd divorce over a tattoo is probably a bit messed up but if they want to divorce they should be allowed to.
So irrational fears should prevent individual rights in your view? Wow.
... you mean in a marriage?
Well, there's a continuum here.
If my partner has some extreme form of OCD there's a balance to be struck between compromise and making your own life impossible.
But how hard can it be to discuss sperm donation with your partner and try to reach some compromise? And if the wife felt as this lady did and explained that, then going ahead anyway is just asking for trouble in my view.
If my partner has some extreme form of OCD there's a balance to be struck between compromise and making your own life impossible.
But how hard can it be to discuss sperm donation with your partner and try to reach some compromise? And if the wife felt as this lady did and explained that, then going ahead anyway is just asking for trouble in my view.
It is a maritial problem, not a 'rights' issue. If you find you're married to someone who behaves in a way that you can't cope with, then you learn to work through it or divorce. It's not for the law to deal with and figure out who sperm belongs to.
It is a maritial problem, not a 'rights' issue. If you find you're married to someone who behaves in a way that you can't cope with, then you learn to work through it or divorce. It's not for the law to deal with and figure out who sperm belongs to.
I agree. She is angry at the law when she should be angry with him.
I think she has every right to be angry with him for doing this without telling her.
It is a maritial problem, not a 'rights' issue. If you find you're married to someone who behaves in a way that you can't cope with, then you learn to work through it or divorce. It's not for the law to deal with and figure out who sperm belongs to.
No I'm just pointing out it isn't really considered a slippery slope if it leads to something less severe occurring as a result. Slippery slope typically means something leading to ever more significant and perhaps undesirable effects (i.e. going downwards), whereas this is talking about one particularly extreme and clearly erroneous proposal leading to something less extreme (something higher up the slope). A slippery slope would be the man being able to control an abortion possibly leading to the woman being able to control his sperm.
I don't think the relative harm is relevant here - the 'slippery slope' is that one harmful act that may lead to another harmful act - which could be more or less harmful than it's precedent.
You could argue that giving a wife control over her husband's sperm is a slippery slope to allowing him to have control over her right to an abortion, or vice versa... both might cause a slippery slope to the other.
And of course what you perceive to be the greater harm may not be a view shared by others. Some people like yourself think that being able to control the fate of a man's sperm as more harmful than a man controlling whether or not a woman can bear or abort a child, but I am pretty sure there are people who will disagree with you.
I don't think the relative harm is relevant here - the 'slippery slope' is that one harmful act that may lead to another harmful act - which could be more or less harmful than it's precedent.
You could argue that giving a wife control over her husband's sperm is a slippery slope to allowing him to have control over her right to an abortion, or vice versa... both might cause a slippery slope to the other.
And of course what you perceive to be the greater harm may not be a view shared by others. Some people like yourself think that being able to control the fate of a man's sperm as more harmful than a man controlling whether or not a woman can bear or abort a child, but I am pretty sure there are people who will disagree with you.
A man clearly has more rights and responsibilities regarding his own offspring than over a woman's eggs, this simply cannot be disputed. It's debatable at what point this rights come into force but numerous laws and simple common sense tell us he has more stake in one than the other AND babies have rights too, therefore there are multiple reasons why a pregnancy is totally different to unfertilised material belonging to one person. The slippery slope can only go downhill, the hill in this sense being an individual's rights and autonomy. As soon as conception takes place you clearly have more than one party involved and you can't have a slippery slope to something which is more defensible and logical.
A man clearly has more rights and responsibilities regarding his own offspring than over a woman's eggs, this simply cannot be disputed. It's debatable at what point this rights come into force but numerous laws and simple common sense tell us he has more stake in one than the other AND babies have rights too, therefore there are multiple reasons why a pregnancy is totally different to unfertilised material belonging to one person. The slippery slope can only go downhill, the hill in this sense being an individual's rights and autonomy. As soon as conception takes place you clearly have more than one party involved and you can't have a slippery slope to something which is more defensible and logical.
Yes you can actually, you can have a slippery slope between any two positions. I appreciate you don't think that is the case but I am afraid it is true nevertheless.
As for your position regarding a woman's right to control what happens to her body being less important than a man's right to control what happens to his sperm, well I can't be bothered to discuss such complete nonsense.
Yes you can actually, you can have a slippery slope between any two positions. I appreciate you don't think that is the case but I am afraid it is true nevertheless.
As for your position regarding a woman's right to control what happens to her body being less important than a man's right to control what happens to his sperm, well I can't be bothered to discuss such complete nonsense.
I think that FM wasn't talking about a woman's right to control her body, but a man's right to a say in the life of his unborn child.
Basically, he's having children with other women, so yeah that is an issue for a married man.
It isn't comparable to a woman having abortions, it's comparable to the wife having babies to another man. Or her donating loads of eggs. The ensuing people born are the biological children of the donors and are on the real family tree.
Basically, he's having children with other women, so yeah that is an issue for a married man.
It isn't comparable to a woman having abortions, it's comparable to the wife having babies to another man. Or her donating loads of eggs. The ensuing people born are the biological children of the donors and are on the real family tree.
He's not sleeping with other women.
Though that's inconsequential. He's been an inconsiderate git, he needs his arse kicked but the law doesn't need changing.
Basically, he's having children with other women, so yeah that is an issue for a married man.
It isn't comparable to a woman having abortions, it's comparable to the wife having babies to another man. Or her donating loads of eggs. The ensuing people born are the biological children of the donors and are on the real family tree.
It is comparable to her donating eggs.
It is not comparable to her having babies to another man.
Though that's inconsequential. He's been an inconsiderate git, he needs his arse kicked but the law doesn't need changing.
I agree on the law thing. But he isn't donating his sperm for wallpaper paste, I'm guessing it's for impregnating other women & sowing his dna far & wide.
Comments
I personally disagree. You do of course have the right to your own opinion and nobody can change it to you, but I am genuinely intrigued; can I ask why?
I agree with this. They disagree to the extent that she is essentially taking legal action against her own husband, hardly the sign of a happy marriage.
My balls, my sperm, my biological business. How this is even up for debate is amazing. If I put my money away in my bank account for a rainy day, as far as I am concerned that's my income I've earned for my savings and my purposes. If you want to divorce me for protecting some of my squiddly diddlies in a private frozen facility, I'd be quite happy to divorce your overly entitled borderline crazy butt. I won't even ask for an ovary in the settlement.
Well I think many things that are perfectly fine when single should not be done in marriage without your partner's consent.
Running up huge debts, booking a personal holiday to Las Vegas, visiting a prostitute.
There shouldn't be laws preventing partners taking actions unreasonable to their partners - but I think it is reasonable for divorce petitions to ensue.
It will be different for different partners of course and can work both ways. Say one partner has a known phobia of tattoos yet the other insists on getting one. In that case I think it could be reasonable for either side to sue for divorce.
No I'm just pointing out it isn't really considered a slippery slope if it leads to something less severe occurring as a result. Slippery slope typically means something leading to ever more significant and perhaps undesirable effects (i.e. going downwards), whereas this is talking about one particularly extreme and clearly erroneous proposal leading to something less extreme (something higher up the slope). A slippery slope would be the man being able to control an abortion possibly leading to the woman being able to control his sperm.
So irrational fears should prevent individual rights in your view? Wow.
That's not how I read what droogie said.
Last I checked tattoos posed no threat to anyone except the person who has them and then it's an issue brought on by unhygienic standards or tools. If someone chooses to get body art, that's their right as an individual with their own right to decide regarding their body. If you are going to divorce someone over something like that. I'd be surprised if you could find anyone to marry you in the first place if the idea of sharing and compromise in a relationship is so foreign and the constraints within it so strict.
Nobody argued with that and I agree that someone who'd divorce over a tattoo is probably a bit messed up but if they want to divorce they should be allowed to.
... you mean in a marriage?
Well, there's a continuum here.
If my partner has some extreme form of OCD there's a balance to be struck between compromise and making your own life impossible.
But how hard can it be to discuss sperm donation with your partner and try to reach some compromise? And if the wife felt as this lady did and explained that, then going ahead anyway is just asking for trouble in my view.
It is a maritial problem, not a 'rights' issue. If you find you're married to someone who behaves in a way that you can't cope with, then you learn to work through it or divorce. It's not for the law to deal with and figure out who sperm belongs to.
I agree. She is angry at the law when she should be angry with him.
I think she has every right to be angry with him for doing this without telling her.
Oh yes I agree with that.
I don't agree with her, any more than I agree with a guy trying to control his wife's right to terminate her pregnancy.
Some things remain individual choice.
I don't think the relative harm is relevant here - the 'slippery slope' is that one harmful act that may lead to another harmful act - which could be more or less harmful than it's precedent.
You could argue that giving a wife control over her husband's sperm is a slippery slope to allowing him to have control over her right to an abortion, or vice versa... both might cause a slippery slope to the other.
And of course what you perceive to be the greater harm may not be a view shared by others. Some people like yourself think that being able to control the fate of a man's sperm as more harmful than a man controlling whether or not a woman can bear or abort a child, but I am pretty sure there are people who will disagree with you.
A man clearly has more rights and responsibilities regarding his own offspring than over a woman's eggs, this simply cannot be disputed. It's debatable at what point this rights come into force but numerous laws and simple common sense tell us he has more stake in one than the other AND babies have rights too, therefore there are multiple reasons why a pregnancy is totally different to unfertilised material belonging to one person. The slippery slope can only go downhill, the hill in this sense being an individual's rights and autonomy. As soon as conception takes place you clearly have more than one party involved and you can't have a slippery slope to something which is more defensible and logical.
Yes you can actually, you can have a slippery slope between any two positions. I appreciate you don't think that is the case but I am afraid it is true nevertheless.
As for your position regarding a woman's right to control what happens to her body being less important than a man's right to control what happens to his sperm, well I can't be bothered to discuss such complete nonsense.
I think that FM wasn't talking about a woman's right to control her body, but a man's right to a say in the life of his unborn child.
Which is in her body. If he has the right to do whatever he likes with his body (which I agree with) then she has the same right.
It isn't comparable to a woman having abortions, it's comparable to the wife having babies to another man. Or her donating loads of eggs. The ensuing people born are the biological children of the donors and are on the real family tree.
He's not sleeping with other women.
Though that's inconsequential. He's been an inconsiderate git, he needs his arse kicked but the law doesn't need changing.
It is comparable to her donating eggs.
It is not comparable to her having babies to another man.
I agree on the law thing. But he isn't donating his sperm for wallpaper paste, I'm guessing it's for impregnating other women & sowing his dna far & wide.
Both ways she would be having babies to another man.