• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arizona law would give frozen embryos to spouse who wants baby after divorce

TU Curmudgeon said:
"You are using affluence as a way to avoid answering the hard questions which, yes, the courts must do."

I'm merely pointing out that your "it will save the taxpayers money by cutting down in the amount paid out is social support payments" is irrelevant since the parties involved aren't very likely to be receiving social support payments.
Click to expand...

I can agree on "affluence" up to a point, as they may indeed not apply for public assistance.

When people with kids get a divorce, the custodial parent usually gets child support. How would this be any different? This was a decision they made together, to create a kid. A father cant just back out on it. He gave his consent to produce this.

TU Curmudgeon said:
As far as "revoking consent" is concerned, would you take the position that a woman who had consented to sexual relations with a man can be REQUIRED to have sexual relations with that man if the woman changes her mind (even if they have already started having sexual relations)?

I seriously doubt that you would.

Would you accept as a defence to a "rape" charge "Well, yes, she said 'No.', but that was after she had said 'Yes.' and once she had said 'Yes.' that was all the consent that is required."?

I seriously doubt that you would.
Click to expand...
Actually, the law is that a woman or man can say no at any time during a sexual encounter and they other person must stop. And in both cases you are talking about direct violations of someone's bodily sovereignty, doing them harm, so it's not nearly the same thing.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:


PS - Over the course of my lifetime, more than one woman has consented to having sexual relations with me. I have no idea where those women are today but, if I chanced across one of the tomorrow, would their consent still be valid - even if they said that they didn't want to have sex with me now?

According to your position on frozen embryos, your answer would have to be "Yes.".

Is it?

I REALLY doubt it.
Click to expand...


It's still not comparable. The acts are distinct entities.

You produced the embryo...you consented at that time.

Now if you both discussed creating more embryos, then consent would be required again for those embryos.
 
Lursa said:
I can agree on "affluence" up to a point, as they may indeed not apply for public assistance.
Click to expand...

The odds that someone with over $40,000 in ready cash is going to be on public assistance are fairly low, aren't they?

Lursa said:
When people with kids get a divorce, the custodial parent usually gets child support. How would this be any different? This was a decision they made together, to create a kid. A father cant just back out on it. He gave his consent to produce this.
Click to expand...

So, if a couple get a divorce then the ex-husband can require the ex-wife to have more children by him since "this was a decision they made together, to create a kid"?

Oh sure.

And a Mother "cant just back out on it" because she gave her "consent to produce this."?

Oh sure.

Lursa said:
Actually, the law is that a woman or man can say no at any time during a sexual encounter and they other person must stop. And in both cases you are talking about direct violations of someone's bodily sovereignty, doing them harm, so it's not nearly the same thing.
Click to expand...

But they agreed to have sexual intercourse in order to have a child, so your position doesn't accord with your position on embryos.

If consent can be revoked prior to the creation of the embryo, then it can be revoked after the creation of the embryo.

Once implantation has actually occurred, I will agree that it is just a bit too late.

Now, let's reverse the situation and postulate a situation where the sperm donor "owns" the embryos. In that case should the egg donor be required to pay child support even if they don't consent to the sperm donor having the embryo implanted in a "surrogate"?

Would your answer be the same if the egg donor had an income of $10,000 a year while the sperm donor had an income of $100,000 a year?

What would your position be if there were 10 embryos, all owned by the sperm donor and the egg donor had two "natural" children of the marriage to support? Should the sperm donor be entitled to have a sufficiency of those embryos implanted to completely offset the amount of child support that they are required to pay to the egg donor? (Would your position change if the sperm donor and the egg donor has identical incomes?)

Quite frankly, your position only "makes sense" if you are considering the sperm donor as nothing more than a cash cow.
 
Lursa said:
It's still not comparable. The acts are distinct entities.

You produced the embryo...you consented at that time.
Click to expand...

Nope, I would have consented to the creation of the embryos so that they could be implanted when WE considered the time appropriate.

There is a "slight" difference between the two.

Lursa said:
Now if you both discussed creating more embryos, then consent would be required again for those embryos.
Click to expand...

Really?

What if we had agreed that we would create more embryos? Would that require any further consent?

Your position that the male is not allowed to retract consent while the female is is rather sexist, isn't it?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Your position that the male is not allowed to retract consent while the female is is rather sexist, isn't it?
Click to expand...

You're allowed to retract consent from further usage of your body. You're not allowed to retract consent for further usage of things that have already left your body.

Kind of like the fact that the woman's abortion rights end at the moment of birth.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
So, if a couple get a divorce then the ex-husband can require the ex-wife to have more children by him since "this was a decision they made together, to create a kid"?

Oh sure.
Click to expand...

You just wrote it again yourself...the had agreed to create A kid. That's a singular act. Why is it implied that it means creating more or on demand?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Nope, I would have consented to the creation of the embryos so that they could be implanted when WE considered the time appropriate.

There is a "slight" difference between the two.



Really?

What if we had agreed that we would create more embryos? Would that require any further consent?

Your position that the male is not allowed to retract consent while the female is is rather sexist, isn't it?
Click to expand...

I dont think it's the same. I just would like the law to say so. The issue that's different here is that the woman's bodily sovereignty and other related rights (privacy, due process) would not be violated.

But IMO the embryos are intentionally created and preserved, correct? And with the intent of producing at least one kid. So that IF one chooses to have one implanted and born AND then for some reason does need to go on public assistance that yes, the non-custodial parent needs to pay support. IMO, in that respect, since it was all planned just like when people have kids the normal way...they know going in that if they split, someone will be held responsible for child support --OR--joint custody.

And IMO this would be the case here since I dont see a difference in the initial intent and I also believe the option of joint custody should be available.
 
Lursa said:
You just wrote it again yourself...the had agreed to create A kid. That's a singular act. Why is it implied that it means creating more or on demand?
Click to expand...

IF the couple had agreed to "have TWO children", but divorced after only ONE, THEN your position would be that "Of course the ex-wife has to have the second child." - right?

Oh sure it would.
 
Lursa said:
I dont think it's the same. I just would like the law to say so. The issue that's different here is that the woman's bodily sovereignty and other related rights (privacy, due process) would not be violated.

But IMO the embryos are intentionally created and preserved, correct? And with the intent of producing at least one kid. So that IF one chooses to have one implanted and born AND then for some reason does need to go on public assistance that yes, the non-custodial parent needs to pay support. IMO, in that respect, since it was all planned just like when people have kids the normal way...they know going in that if they split, someone will be held responsible for child support --OR--joint custody.

And IMO this would be the case here since I dont see a difference in the initial intent and I also believe the option of joint custody should be available.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good - EXCEPT for the fact that it completely ignores the "so that they could be implanted when WE considered the time appropriate" part of the agreement.

I can suggest that the addition of a clause to the contract whereby each party agrees to "indemnify and save harmless the other from any claims arising from the implantation of any of the embryos, including, but not limited to, claims for child support by whatever name it is called" should any embryo be implanted without the consent of the other, would likely resolve the whole issue.

The non-consenting party would still have to pay any court ordered "child support" but the recipient party would then have to pay it back to the non-consenting party under the terms of the contract.

This solution should greatly please the legal profession as there would now be TWO court cases from which they can derive fees rather than only one.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
IF the couple had agreed to "have TWO children", but divorced after only ONE, THEN your position would be that "Of course the ex-wife has to have the second child." - right?

Oh sure it would.
Click to expand...
Really? Who does that?

And That's your answer? You answered my question with a question.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
That's all well and good - EXCEPT for the fact that it completely ignores the "so that they could be implanted when WE considered the time appropriate" part of the agreement.

I can suggest that the addition of a clause to the contract whereby each party agrees to "indemnify and save harmless the other from any claims arising from the implantation of any of the embryos, including, but not limited to, claims for child support by whatever name it is called" should any embryo be implanted without the consent of the other, would likely resolve the whole issue.

The non-consenting party would still have to pay any court ordered "child support" but the recipient party would then have to pay it back to the non-consenting party under the terms of the contract.

This solution should greatly please the legal profession as there would now be TWO court cases from which they can derive fees rather than only one.
Click to expand...

Yuh, that's why I wrote:
I dont think it's the same. I just would like the law to say so.
Click to expand...

And if that's in the contract, I think it should be followed but again...what laws does this follow? Family law? Property?

I think the contractual language, *from the beginning* should spell out that if they cant come to a consensual use of the embryos, then the embryos would be destroyed. Or donated to blah blah, or...but whatever it is, it's there in writing from the beginning and they are held to that contract.
 
Lursa said:
Really? Who does that?

And That's your answer? You answered my question with a question.
Click to expand...

Might I suggest that you actually attempt "reading for content"?


"IF the couple had agreed to "have TWO children", but divorced after only ONE, THEN your position would be that "Of course the ex-wife has to have the second child."
​

is an exact analogy to your position that "When they created the embryos they agreed that the embryos would be implanted and once that agreement has been made the consent (of the male) cannot be rescinded.".

I do notice that you have assiduously been avoiding responding to


If it were the male that "owned" the embryos, and if the male wanted to have them implanted, and if there were actual living children of the marriage, would the male be allowed to offset the amount that he is required to pay to the female in child support against the amount that the female has to pay to the male in child support - even if that meant that the female ended up with a negative income from child support?
​

I quite appreciate the philosophical position that "Women should have all the rights and the men should always pay." exists. However my position is that "Women and men should have equal rights and the matter of payment is something that should be borne equitably. If that means that the man "gets the kids" because the man is actually the better parent ("better parent" is NOT the same as "has spent the most time with the kids prior to separation") and the woman "pays child support" then so be it.

When practicing, I did several "custody reversal" cases wherein the evidence established that, despite what appeared to be the mother's 'best efforts', the mother was unable to care for the children as well as the father was. In some of those cases the evidence established that that "not as well as" was the same thing as "almost totally unable to provide even basic".

In those cases, I felt absolutely no moral compunction AGAINST seeking court orders that the mother pay child support to the father - even if the mother was on "welfare" as there was no legal prohibition on it. However, I did advise against it on tactical grounds (save and except for a token order of $1.00 per child per year simply to ensure that the father would have easier access to child support payments should the mother's financial situation change).

PS - I do realize that the fact that I "ripped innocent children from the arms of their mothers for the financial benefit of the dominant oppressing dominating male oppressors" is quite sufficient to enable you to label me a Male Chauvinist Pig, but I've been called worse by better.
 
Lursa said:
Yuh, that's why I wrote:

And if that's in the contract, I think it should be followed but again...what laws does this follow? Family law? Property?

I think the contractual language, *from the beginning* should spell out that if they cant come to a consensual use of the embryos, then the embryos would be destroyed. Or donated to blah blah, or...but whatever it is, it's there in writing from the beginning and they are held to that contract.
Click to expand...

As a matter of contract law, the courts are allowed to "import necessary terms" into most contracts ("Contracts of Adhesion" being a somewhat different matter).

Where the contract, of necessity, includes a "degree of consent" then the courts have the legal power to determine whether that "degree of consent" is actually present. If it is, then the courts will assist the claiming party to enforce the contract. If it is NOT, then the courts will NOT assist the claiming party to enforce the contract.

I do agree that it would be helpful if EVERY contract were to be written in clear, plain, simple, unambiguous language that covered every single conceivable possibility no matter how remote, but it ain't gonna happen - EVER.

PS - "Child Support" is, a "statutory right" and that "statutory right" actually "belongs" to the child. A contract for an illegal purpose - and "denying a child their statutory right" is a contract for an illegal purpose. NEITHER the egg donor nor the sperm donor can "contract out" of their liability under the laws that grant the "statutory right" to "child support". This, however, does not mean that the child's "statutory right" to receive "child support" cannot be modified by statute (such as a statute which says something like


"Where BOTH parties do not agree to the implantation of the embryo, the party that does not agree shall NOT be liable to the other party for 'Child Support' payments, however so characterized, AND shall have no other "Parental Rights" nor any other "Parental Responsibilities" - save and except that the non-consenting party shall provide the court with a complete medical history and also with any significant updates, such updates to be provided no less than every five years."
​
 
Last edited:
TU Curmudgeon said:
I do notice that you have assiduously been avoiding responding to


If it were the male that "owned" the embryos, and if the male wanted to have them implanted, and if there were actual living children of the marriage, would the male be allowed to offset the amount that he is required to pay to the female in child support against the amount that the female has to pay to the male in child support - even if that meant that the female ended up with a negative income from child support?
​
Click to expand...

I have no idea what that means.

But assignment of child support does depend on custody. Who is raising the offspring? Do they have joint custody?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
As a matter of contract law, the courts are allowed to "import necessary terms" into most contracts ("Contracts of Adhesion" being a somewhat different matter).

Where the contract, of necessity, includes a "degree of consent" then the courts have the legal power to determine whether that "degree of consent" is actually present. If it is, then the courts will assist the claiming party to enforce the contract. If it is NOT, then the courts will NOT assist the claiming party to enforce the contract.

I do agree that it would be helpful if EVERY contract were to be written in clear, plain, simple, unambiguous language that covered every single conceivable possibility no matter how remote, but it ain't gonna happen - EVER.

PS - "Child Support" is, a "statutory right" and that "statutory right" actually "belongs" to the child. A contract for an illegal purpose - and "denying a child their statutory right" is a contract for an illegal purpose. NEITHER the egg donor nor the sperm donor can "contract out" of their liability under the laws that grant the "statutory right" to "child support". This, however, does not mean that the child's "statutory right" to receive "child support" cannot be modified by statute (such as a statute which says something like


"Where BOTH parties do not agree to the implantation of the embryo, the party that does not agree shall NOT be liable to the other party for 'Child Support' payments, however so characterized, AND shall have no other "Parental Rights" nor any other "Parental Responsibilities" - save and except that the non-consenting party shall provide the court with a complete medical history and also with any significant updates, such updates to be provided no less than every five years."
​
Click to expand...

That is awesome information, thanks! Can I get the source for that?
 
Lursa said:
I have no idea what that means.
Click to expand...

Well colour me surprised.

Lursa said:
But assignment of child support does depend on custody. Who is raising the offspring? Do they have joint custody?
Click to expand...

Let's try it in point form:

  • "A" and "B" created several embryos while married.
  • While married, "A" and "B" had two of those embryos implanted and brought to term.
  • "A" and "B" divorced.
  • In the divorce "A" was awarded custody of the children.
  • In the divorce "B" was awarded ownership of the embryos.
  • In the divorce "B" was ordered to pay "A" child support in the amount of "$X.xx per child".
  • "B" wishes to have three of the embryos "B" owns implanted.
  • "A" objects.
  • "B" has the embryos implanted and brought to term (using three different "embryo incubators").
  • "B" takes "A" to court for an order that "A" pay to "B" child support in the amount of "$Y.yy per child".
  • "A" actually has a higher income than "B"
  • "$Y.yy x 3" just happens to exceed "$X.xx x 2".
  • Should "B" be allowed to do a "cross accounting" so that the amount that "B" actually pays to "A" is $0.00 while the amount that "A" pays to "B" is actually $[(3x$Y.yy)-($2$X.xx)]?

Would your answer be the same regardless of whether "A" or "B" was the male and regardless of whether "B" or "A" was the female?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Well colour me surprised.



Let's try it in point form:

  • "A" and "B" created several embryos while married.
  • While married, "A" and "B" had two of those embryos implanted and brought to term.
  • "A" and "B" divorced.
  • In the divorce "A" was awarded custody of the children.
  • In the divorce "B" was awarded ownership of the embryos.
  • In the divorce "B" was ordered to pay "A" child support in the amount of "$X.xx per child".
  • "B" wishes to have three of the embryos "B" owns implanted.
  • "A" objects.
  • "B" has the embryos implanted and brought to term (using three different "embryo incubators").
  • "B" takes "A" to court for an order that "A" pay to "B" child support in the amount of "$Y.yy per child".
  • "A" actually has a higher income than "B"
  • "$Y.yy x 3" just happens to exceed "$X.xx x 2".
  • Should "B" be allowed to do a "cross accounting" so that the amount that "B" actually pays to "A" is $0.00 while the amount that "A" pays to "B" is actually $[(3x$Y.yy)-($2$X.xx)]?

Would your answer be the same regardless of whether "A" or "B" was the male and regardless of whether "B" or "A" was the female?
Click to expand...

Way too complicated. This is the Internet, not homework. I still couldnt get more than halfway thru it.

My opinion is that if there are born kids, it should be handled just like current child support and the non-custodial parent would pay child support IF public assistance was required or under the same circumstances of divorce (if that applies).
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Might I suggest that you actually attempt "reading for content"?


"IF the couple had agreed to "have TWO children", but divorced after only ONE, THEN your position would be that "Of course the ex-wife has to have the second child."
​

is an exact analogy to your position that "When they created the embryos they agreed that the embryos would be implanted and once that agreement has been made the consent (of the male) cannot be rescinded.".

I do notice that you have assiduously been avoiding responding to


If it were the male that "owned" the embryos, and if the male wanted to have them implanted, and if there were actual living children of the marriage, would the male be allowed to offset the amount that he is required to pay to the female in child support against the amount that the female has to pay to the male in child support - even if that meant that the female ended up with a negative income from child support?
​

I quite appreciate the philosophical position that "Women should have all the rights and the men should always pay." exists. However my position is that "Women and men should have equal rights and the matter of payment is something that should be borne equitably. If that means that the man "gets the kids" because the man is actually the better parent ("better parent" is NOT the same as "has spent the most time with the kids prior to separation") and the woman "pays child support" then so be it.

When practicing, I did several "custody reversal" cases wherein the evidence established that, despite what appeared to be the mother's 'best efforts', the mother was unable to care for the children as well as the father was. In some of those cases the evidence established that that "not as well as" was the same thing as "almost totally unable to provide even basic".

In those cases, I felt absolutely no moral compunction AGAINST seeking court orders that the mother pay child support to the father - even if the mother was on "welfare" as there was no legal prohibition on it. However, I did advise against it on tactical grounds (save and except for a token order of $1.00 per child per year simply to ensure that the father would have easier access to child support payments should the mother's financial situation change).

PS - I do realize that the fact that I "ripped innocent children from the arms of their mothers for the financial benefit of the dominant oppressing dominating male oppressors" is quite sufficient to enable you to label me a Male Chauvinist Pig, but I've been called worse by better.
Click to expand...

You bring up a great point TU -- child support goes both directions. If the father, in this situation, was the one that wanted kids, and used a surrogate, could the mother be ordered to pay child support on a child she didn't want? Would custody come into play?
 
Felis Leo said:
I do not see why this is a problem at all. The woman wants children, and this is her only opportunity to have children that are biologically her own. I see no argument for them being kept away from her, especially if the father is not on the hook for child support. Let her have the damn embryos.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't see why this is even an argument.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Well colour me surprised.



Let's try it in point form:

  • "A" and "B" created several embryos while married.
  • While married, "A" and "B" had two of those embryos implanted and brought to term.
  • "A" and "B" divorced.
  • In the divorce "A" was awarded custody of the children.
  • In the divorce "B" was awarded ownership of the embryos.
  • In the divorce "B" was ordered to pay "A" child support in the amount of "$X.xx per child".
  • "B" wishes to have three of the embryos "B" owns implanted.
  • "A" objects.
  • "B" has the embryos implanted and brought to term (using three different "embryo incubators").
  • "B" takes "A" to court for an order that "A" pay to "B" child support in the amount of "$Y.yy per child".
  • "A" actually has a higher income than "B"
  • "$Y.yy x 3" just happens to exceed "$X.xx x 2".
  • Should "B" be allowed to do a "cross accounting" so that the amount that "B" actually pays to "A" is $0.00 while the amount that "A" pays to "B" is actually $[(3x$Y.yy)-($2$X.xx)]?

Would your answer be the same regardless of whether "A" or "B" was the male and regardless of whether "B" or "A" was the female?
Click to expand...

It can get crazy like that. Not that the woman shouldn't be able to have the Embryos, but the court needs to have a clear, final, undisputed agreement on what's going to happen -- that's hard to do in a divorce.

Real example -- friend had 3 kids. Mom had custody. My state uses a formula for child support -- 25% + 5% for each child. He paid 40% of his salary for child support.

Middle daughter gets mad at mom and moves in with Dad. Mom said, no problem -- pay 2/3 the child support amount. Dad said, No, we each have one kid, I'll pay 1/3 since you have the third.

Mom goes to court... judge says, you're both wrong. Dad pays 35% (25%+ 10% for two kids), Mom pays 30% (25% + 5% for one kid). Since Mom makes more, she gets to pay Dad the difference. And by the way, when the 17 year old (with Mom) has his next birthday... that amount goes up.
 
dcsports said:
It can get crazy like that. Not that the woman shouldn't be able to have the Embryos, but the court needs to have a clear, final, undisputed agreement on what's going to happen -- that's hard to do in a divorce.

Real example -- friend had 3 kids. Mom had custody. My state uses a formula for child support -- 25% + 5% for each child. He paid 40% of his salary for child support.

Middle daughter gets mad at mom and moves in with Dad. Mom said, no problem -- pay 2/3 the child support amount. Dad said, No, we each have one kid, I'll pay 1/3 since you have the third.

Mom goes to court... judge says, you're both wrong. Dad pays 35% (25%+ 10% for two kids), Mom pays 30% (25% + 5% for one kid). Since Mom makes more, she gets to pay Dad the difference. And by the way, when the 17 year old (with Mom) has his next birthday... that amount goes up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that stuff gets very messy. And sad.

And bureaucracy in general is a bitch to deal with and to change.
 
Lursa said:
That's obviously cut and pasted, the source would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

Strangely enough, it isn't.

The "source" is my own brain and I made it up as I typed it.

Some people are actually trained to do that sort of "complicated stuff" you know.

Not only that, but some of the people who are actually trained to do that sort of "complicated stuff" actually do it.

In fact, some of the people who actually do that sort of "complicated stuff" that they are trained to do can do it better than, not only other people who wouldn't have a clue how to do it if they were asked to, other people who were actually trained to do that sort of "complicated stuff".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom