Sacred Sperm

[BvBPL]

Rare occurrences are worthy of mention precisely because of their rarity.

 

[AdamCrock]

In my absolutely non-expert opinion I say wholeheartedly Yes to the plea of that woman and I think she has every right to harvest that sperm. Some value trinkets like rings or necklaces from their deceased spouses and this woman in particular want's to have children with the man she loves. Perhaps to remember him by or to prolong the memory of him. I think her motivation is love for this poor man so there is nothing immoral in this , I don't care what religion has to say about this really There is only one "if" in this case ... If this woman seeks to have children with this man only for financial gains that is a whole different case - in case she is cunning and cold she should be denied and I think that is the case for the court to decide.

 

[Farm Boy]

If we assume that the woman can not wake up again I am down with this as well.

Well, I guess you keep the point that's awarded for consistency.

 

[warpus]

In my absolutely non-expert opinion I say wholeheartedly Yes to the plea of that woman and I think she has every right to harvest that sperm. Some value trinkets like rings or necklaces from their deceased spouses and this woman in particular want's to have children with the man she loves. Perhaps to remember him by or to prolong the memory of him. I think her motivation is love for this poor man so there is nothing immoral in this , I don't care what religion has to say about this really There is only one "if" in this case ... If this woman seeks to have children with this man only for financial gains that is a whole different case - in case she is cunning and cold she should be denied and I think that is the case for the court to decide.

That's all great, but you're totally forgetting about the man's wishes here. He has rights and if he hasn't agreed to this, I don't see how you could pursue it without trampling all over his reproductive rights.

 

[Farm Boy]

Warpus, I think you'll get some people that don't value rights in humans that they don't believe are going to wake up. You'll also need to struggle against the assumption that all breeding is somehow innately desirable for males, so that isn't a right that needs the same level of protection.

 

[warpus]

Warpus, I think you'll get some people that don't value rights in humans that they don't believe are going to wake up.

Yeah, and we also have people who think that slavery is fine and dandy. Why should we care what those people think? People have rights until they die.

You'll also need to struggle against the assumption that all breeding is somehow innately desirable for males, so that isn't a right that needs the same level of protection.

Wait, what? Reproductive rights are important across the board, whether you're male or female. What you're saying sounds sort of sexist to be honest.

Maybe you don't care which woman takes your sperm and makes babies with it, but some of us do! It shouldn't be allowed until you've given permission by either engaging in consentual unprotected sex or drafting up some legal document in which you make this clear.

 

[Farm Boy]

I agree. It's sexist if true, I rather hope I'm incorrect. But do you think that there isn't a pretty deeply set social norm that sex and reproduction is something men generally consent to by default(consenting to actual parenting might be different)? That in the lack of other circumstances it's closer to the truth that people assume men will default to "yes" on a breeding question while it's considered not only improper but wildly regressive to set that same default to "yes" for a female? Granted, there are reasons for this, I just don't think they're good ones.

To put a softer shoe on it, do you think there is a common perception difference between husbands and wives in a marriage where either 1) the wife wants a child and the husband does not, and 2) the husband wants a child but the wife does not? - Granted, there are relevant biological considerations regarding investment here, and those matter, and the pressure goes both ways, women have a lot of social pressure on them to have kids too(significantly more in some ways) - but do you think it's the same sort of pressures? "Ditch him" seems kinda like the sentiment for a woman that wants kids and husband that doesn't perform. While men do the same thing, isn't that a bit more looked down upon?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

btw @ BvBPL concerning your other objection based on the issue of inheritance:
Since the fatherhood would carry no actual personal relationship but be mere a question of genetics and since the father can be safely assumed to have no personal responsibility for the life of the child whatsoever - for those two points I see good grounds for genetic inheritance not being sufficient for further inheritance claims under these special circumstances. Solving this problem.

 

[JollyRoger]

Baseline inheritance laws would likely hold otherwise - as would the typical will.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I am not giving legal counsel but muse on what could be the law, in case that wasn't obvious.
And the typical will accounts for hypothetical children?

 

[El_Machinae]

Farm Boy, your perception might be due to local factors. Where I'm from "not wanting to have kids, while the other partner does" is considered to be a reasonable cause of separation. Like, it's not 'perfectly' acceptable. But people 'get' it, and there's an assumption of 'no hard feelings'.

 

[Farm Boy]

Might just be my social circle. Divorce is a significant life failure. Barring something like abuse I suppose, though there's more than enough failure to go around in that situation, it's just all on one party(well, usually). My comeback question would be why was this not sorted out previous to getting married in the first place?

 

[BvBPL]

btw @ BvBPL concerning your other objection based on the issue of inheritance:
Since the fatherhood would carry no actual personal relationship but be mere a question of genetics and since the father can be safely assumed to have no personal responsibility for the life of the child whatsoever - for those two points I see good grounds for genetic inheritance not being sufficient for further inheritance claims under these special circumstances. Solving this problem.

Baseline inheritance laws would likely hold otherwise - as would the typical will.

A child need not have a personal relationship with the father to be an heir. Inheritance law recognizes that a child conceived prior to the death of a father but born afterwards can inherit. A will can also provide an open inheritance for all children without enumerating them which if the case opens the door to the child being an heir.

Interestingly, my commonwealth had a case that was very much on point. In the case, the husband had his sperm frozen, then he died, then his wife was inseminated with his frozen sperm (I think two years later), and then his wife sued for the resulting twin girls to be considered the husband's issue (children).

The court determined that a child born of artificial insemination could pursue a claim against the estate of the father, but the father would have needed to provide clear and unequivocal statements that he consented to the posthumous use of his sperm and that he wanted to support the resulting children.

This court concluded that, given the Legislature's repeated and forceful expression of its will that all children be entitled to the same rights and protections of the law regardless of the accidents of their birth, and given the Legislature's affirmative support of assistive reproductive technologies, the Legislature intended that posthumously conceived children should be entitled, in so far as possible, to the same fights and protections of the law as children conceived before death. [545-547]

This court concluded that posthumously conceived children must obtain a judgment of paternity as a necessary prerequisite to enjoying inheritance fights in the estate of the deceased genetic parent, but, given the procedural posture of the case, did not consider the question of the implications of a limitations period on the right of posthumously conceived children to bring claims against the intestate estate. [547-551]

In considering the implications of the State interest in honoring reproductive choices of individuals on the right of posthumously conceived children to bring claims against an intestate's estate, this court concluded that a prospective donor parent must clearly and unequivocally consent not only to posthumous reproduction but also to the support of any resulting child before such a child may make a claim against the estate [551-554]

In that case, the court determined that the children in question could not inherit from the husband because the husband never provided the clear consent of the use of his sperm nor that he would support the child from his estate.

This case shows that the door is very much open to children born of artificial insemination to press a claim against the estate. While barriers exist, those barriers are not insurmountable.

A few key differences exist between that case and the present one.

For one, the case is in England and I'm in the states. The decision of my commonwealth's high court may well be persuasive to an English court, but it would not be controlling.

For another, the man in the American case died w/o a will. Here though we don't know if he has a will or not. He may very will have a will that expressly provides for all of his children without enumerating them. If that's the case then there will be a strong claim that he wanted to support his unborn child through his estate. There's also sorts of other will, trust, and estate considerations that could also come into play here as well.

The couple in the American case was also married, whereas here they are not. This may or may not affect the validity of a claim against the estate. The answer would depend on English inheritance law as it applies to bastardy. I have not looked that up at all, but I do know that in a fair number of American states bastards have the same claim to inheritance as children born in wedlock.

The big difference though is that in this case the man is still alive. If the mother can obtain the sperm and be inseminated by it prior to the man's death then the child may have a very good claim to the estate under the rule I cited above.

 

[warpus]

I agree. It's sexist if true, I rather hope I'm incorrect. But do you think that there isn't a pretty deeply set social norm that sex and reproduction is something men generally consent to by default(consenting to actual parenting might be different)? That in the lack of other circumstances it's closer to the truth that people assume men will default to "yes" on a breeding question while it's considered not only improper but wildly regressive to set that same default to "yes" for a female? Granted, there are reasons for this, I just don't think they're good ones.

This must be a very regional or cultural thing, because I can't relate at all. Sex I will agree with you on - mainly because it is much much easier for women to get sex than it is for men, due to sexual economics or whatever you want to call it.

But reproduction? If anything I would say that most men do not want to reproduce, when having sex. Most of the time.. but I'm still not that comfortable making generalizations like that either, and either way it shouldn't affect the laws that govern reproduction, kids, custody, or whatever.

To put a softer shoe on it, do you think there is a common perception difference between husbands and wives in a marriage where either 1) the wife wants a child and the husband does not, and 2) the husband wants a child but the wife does not? - Granted, there are relevant biological considerations regarding investment here, and those matter, and the pressure goes both ways, women have a lot of social pressure on them to have kids too(significantly more in some ways) - but do you think it's the same sort of pressures? "Ditch him" seems kinda like the sentiment for a woman that wants kids and husband that doesn't perform. While men do the same thing, isn't that a bit more looked down upon?

I see that as a relationship issue that the couple will have to discuss. If one of them doesn't want children and the other one does - that's obviously a disagreement they're going to have to figure out, either by somebody changing his or her mind, or a divorce.

I don't think it's fair to assume who wants what until you've talked to them individually.

 

[El_Machinae]

Might just be my social circle. Divorce is a significant life failure. Barring something like abuse I suppose, though there's more than enough failure to go around in that situation, it's just all on one party(well, usually). My comeback question would be why was this not sorted out previous to getting married in the first place?

It certainly should be. A lot of people seem to think that "their minds will change".
I'll not disagree that divorce is considered "a failure". Now, if one party is clearly the villain, then the other spouse isn't really looked down on, hopefully not at all. If the divorce is for "personality reasons", we beg them to get counseling. A difference in wanting kids is usually seen as an understandable, reasonably benign reason to get separated. It's like one spouse decides to come out of the closest.

"okay, fair enough" is the response.

 

[Farm Boy]

If one spouse comes out of the closet, if the wife/husband didn't know they were gay, "Good God you were a cruel motherfornicator to marry them in the first place, jackdonkey." seems the appropriate response. Business-y sorts of conceiving marriages amongst homosexuals being something of an outlier I suppose. I think the era of those outliers is probably ending though.

I don't think I'd know people that would buy the excuse of being on different pages regarding having children. If there wasn't agreement beforehand, they're both stupid. If one person changed their mind later, that'd be unfair and mostly on them, but I think I probably would actually look askance at a man who claims to love somebody enough to spend his life with them that isn't flexible enough to understand that things change over decades and his spouse may need to attempt to have a child to feel complete. Yea, it's a hell of a big thing to take on, but marriage is a hell of a big thing. We 'aint playin.

 

[warpus]

If one spouse comes out of the closet, if the wife/husband didn't know they were gay, "Good God you were a cruel motherfornicator to marry them in the first place, jackdonkey." seems the appropriate response.

I wouldn't be so harsh on them. There must be a ton of people living in the closet around the world, due to social pressures and what not. If my spouse came out of the closet, I'd be upset, but at the same time you gotta realize how it must have sucked for them to go along with the farce and marry someone of a gender they weren't attracted to because that's what society wanted them to. There must be millions of people around the world in marriages like this, it's probably not as uncommon as you might think. I mean, statistically speaking, so and so many people are going to be gay. And a lot of those people likely live in places wehre it isn't easy to come out and admit that you are gay.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm trying to keep it local. And by keeping it local for a Midwestern American born in the latter half of the 20th century, the social stigmas against spinsterhood or bachelorhood are not so severe as to warrant lying to somebody about one of the very most important things in their life. If you want to jimmy around the variables, and I'm certain different parts of the world warrant this, my assessment can change. But a 40ish-year-old Illinois resident that's now breaking it off after 10-20 years since "I was lying to you and possibly our kids the entire time," man, what an ass. Probably. If one's bought in that hard already, marriage is about more than the sexual energy. Suck it up and live with it.

 

[JollyRoger]

And the typical will accounts for hypothetical children?

It would be malpractice do draft one that doesn't in one way or another.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Really? Interesting.