A court battle between a divorced couple over the future of their frozen embryos began Monday with an attorney for the former husband accusing the woman of using the dispute to get money.
Dr. Mimi Lee, 46, a pianist and part-time anesthesiologist, married Stephen Findley, a wealthy executive, five years ago. Shortly before the wedding, Lee learned she had breast cancer.
Unsure whether the disease would make it impossible for her to have children, the couple went to a fertility center, where Lee's eggs and Findley's sperm created five embryos, now frozen.
Findley filed for divorce two years ago and wants the embryos destroyed. Lee, now infertile, wants to implant the embryos into a surrogate and have a baby. Without the embryos, she will never have a child who shares her genes.
If the embryos are implanted and carry to term, the ex-husband becomes a father without consent. If the embryos are destroyed, the ex-wife is denied the deep need to procreate. The embryos themselves have issues either way. Modern biomedical ethics are complex.
Original Submission
Related Stories
Woman can use donor sperm in IVF without estranged husband's consent, court rules
A Victorian woman will not need her estranged husband's permission to undergo IVF using donor sperm following a ruling by the federal court in Melbourne. The court heard that the woman, who cannot be named, has been separated and living apart from her husband since late 2017. The woman wanted to try to conceive through IVF using donor sperm, but was told by a Melbourne reproductive clinic that under Victoria's Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act she first needed her husband's consent.
The matter was urgent because the woman is 45 and patients are generally only able to use their own eggs in an IVF procedure when they are younger than 46. The woman said she recently underwent a procedure to collect her eggs and freeze them for later use after she was divorced, but was told the prospect of a successful pregnancy using frozen eggs was lower than IVF using fresh eggs. The clinic told her that with her husband's consent, she could begin a round of treatment later in September.
[...] Under the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act, there is a guiding principle that "the welfare and interests of persons born or to be born as a result of treatment procedures are paramount". But the court heard that this should not justify requiring the consent of a former partner who, without such consent, would have no responsibility for the child anyway.
Federal court Justice John Griffiths ordered that the woman could undergo IVF without consent and that the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act discriminated against her on the basis of her marital status. He declared that part of the law "invalid and inoperable". In his judgment published on Friday, Griffiths said nothing in his ruling was intended to harm the reputation of the woman's estranged husband and that the decision would not directly affect his legal rights, and that he would not be imputed with any parental rights, obligations or responsibilities.
See also: Parents likely to block girlfriend's attempt to access sperm from dead son (2016)
Related: Bioethicist Recommends Freezing Sperm to Lessen Genetic Risks
Divorced Couple Fighting in Court over Frozen Embryos
Medical Ethics of Multiples, Surrogacy, and Abortion
Deceased Dutch Fertility Clinic Doctor's Belongings to be DNA Tested
Japanese Man Granted Paternity Rights to 13 Children Born to Surrogate Mothers
(Score: 5, Funny) by krishnoid on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:28PM
(Score: 4, Funny) by VortexCortex on Thursday July 16 2015, @06:27AM
Paying child support for your clever girl in goats: Priceless.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @02:51PM
LOL :-)
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday July 16 2015, @06:43PM
Kramer vs. Raptor -- I'm optioning it right now.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:33PM
We had to sign a paper indicating what we wanted done with the frozen eggs in various scenarios including death of one or more partners or divorce.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Kilo110 on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:59PM
The couple did this as well. They both agreed to destroy the eggs in case of divorce. The woman wants to renege.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday July 16 2015, @03:42PM
In which case, she should be granted the ability to have the children and he should not have to pay child support. Win / Win. The catch would be that he wouldn't have any rights over the children. Considering he wants to destroy them, that should be a fair deal.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by albert on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:02PM
The courts use "best interests of the child" as their standard and totally disregard any contracts.
Fix that, and he might go along.
His only other hope would be something insane like suing for damages equal to the child support. Good luck with that, hmmm? He's not going to take the gamble.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:33PM
The courts use "best interests of the child" as their standard and totally disregard any contracts.
Another case where the "for the children" cries violates people's liberties and leads to nonsensical decisions.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:55PM
The child doesn't have a voice. The court is their voice. I wonder what your views are on Child Labor. Certainly working a child to the bone, but them actually having a chance of surviving is better than death.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @05:03PM
The child might not have a voice, but the ends don't justify the means. If the government cares about the child so much, then instead of making people in situations like these personally shell out the money to pay for them, they can pay for it themselves.
But you seem to be an "the ends justify the means" person, where violating our principles, our constitution, and our fundamental liberties are all okay in the name of the children. Or you might be, but I suspect that you simply missed my point, given what you said about child labor. The "for the children" crowd is dangerous because they use emotional arguments about children to manipulate emotional suckers into supporting unjust policies that violate our rights and possibly the constitution. Same with terrorism. It's not merely about child support, either.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday July 16 2015, @07:59PM
Our fundamental liberties don't include killing children. The main ethical issue at hand is whether or not it is right for a person to kill an unborn child. Whether or not is is their own shouldn't make a difference. Thankfully, I live in a State that recognizes an unborn child as a person during all stages of development. You say the ends don't justify the means, but that makes no sense in the way you are describing it. The only rights that are being violated are of a person who is unable to defend themselves. Moving on to your comment about Terrorism. The Patriot Act was a clear violation of our personal freedoms. The equally labeled "Freedom Act" isn't much better. Both the Republicans and Democrats are at fault on both counts. Personally, I think it would have been a lot better, if the guards at our Airports started carrying Automatic Weapons. Instead of the whole, lets body scan everyone, and still miss pretty much everything, which does violate our right to privacy.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @09:29PM
Our fundamental liberties don't include killing children.
You seem to be referring to abortion. I'd say that while everyone has a right to life, no one has a right to inhabit someone else's body as a form of life support. They own their body, and since the right to control your own body is one of the most fundamental rights there is, they can evict you. Our fundamental liberties may not include killing children, but controlling our own bodies is a fundamental liberty, and no child's right to life is so important that they can override your right to control your own body, thereby turning you into a mere baby-making machine at the command of government thugs.
I don't know why you brought up abortion, but whatever. I was thinking more along the lines of more government surveillance to stop the child molester bogeymen.
The only rights that are being violated are of a person who is unable to defend themselves.
Like a woman would be defenseless against the overwhelming force of government violating her basic right to control her body. You've gone above and beyond merely disagreeing with abortion, to the point where it seems you think the government can take ownership of other people's bodies, and you think other people can use your body for life support no matter your feelings.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday July 16 2015, @09:38PM
I am equating killing the embryo with abortion. In this case the woman actually wants to have the children, so the right of the woman to control her own body, isn't part of the equation. (She actually wants to use a Surrogate, but that's neither here nor there.) The right of the woman to control her own body is part of the reason why I am not vehemently against Pro Choice. The reality is that it's an extremely controversial issue with various complications.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @10:07PM
The real issue here is that there is no guarantee that the guy won't be forced to pay child support for some insane reason. Does someone have a right to force other people to impregnate them/be impregnated? If it were already in her body, I would agree about the issue of control, but it isn't. Not yet, anyway. And she signed an actual agreement, as well.
The reality is that it's an extremely controversial issue with various complications.
The NSA's mass surveillance is also apparently controversial. What a sad state of affairs this is for "the land of the free and the home of the brave".
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday July 16 2015, @10:33PM
The NSA's mass surveillance is possibly even worse than the Patriot Act or maybe just a symptom of it.
The right thing to do would be to allow her to have the child(ren) and to exempt him from child support. Though, as has been stated in the discussions, that isn't cut and dry either. The government could still go after him for child responsibilities even, if she signed an agreement stating that he was off the hook. Though, that would only likely happen, if she were to need financial assistance from the government.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @10:35PM
The potential child support is really the issue for me. It wouldn't matter if she had the child otherwise.
Though, that would only likely happen, if she were to need financial assistance from the government.
Happens all the time.
(Score: 1) by hedleyroos on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:09AM
Hey, this is not the green site. You're supposed to rtfa😛
(Score: 1, Redundant) by tibman on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:34PM
Sounds like consent was already given. That deed is done. This is like a pregnancy on pause and the now ex-father wants to have them aborted. If ownership wasn't explicitly agreed on then they each get half of the fertilized embryos. IMO of course : )
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 4, Informative) by pinchy on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:57PM
and
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 15 2015, @11:16PM
Well then obviously the solution is for Lee to murder Findley.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by scruffybeard on Thursday July 16 2015, @01:18AM
But Whittier Law School’s Daar said that waiver “has no legal meaning.”
I agree 100%. Seeing how she has already signed an agreement to destroy the embryos in the case of a divorce, why should anyone believe her when she says she would release him from child support.
(Score: 5, Informative) by sjames on Thursday July 16 2015, @01:44AM
Beyond that, there has been a case where a woman went on public assistance and the state sued the sperm donor against the wishes of the mother and of the signed agreement that he would have no paternal rights of responsibilities.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by choose another one on Thursday July 16 2015, @09:11AM
Easy solution to the child support issue is for her to setup a court controlled trust fund that will pay her support, in the event that any claim is made against the father, the fund goes to him, so he can pay support from it. If she hasn't got the money up front then the fund could be setup by insuring her income and her life in some way, I guess.
If she doesn't have the money and can't get life/health/income insurance (she has already had cancer...) then that should be a big clue to her that she shouldn't be doing this.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Thursday July 16 2015, @03:32AM
So she agreed to destroy the embryos, but now has a lawyer trying to get her out of that agreement.
Now afterwords, she is offering to agree to waive child support. Would you trust this second offer?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @10:15PM
Findley is just being a dick. He is almost guaranteed that he will not have to pay child support, even without his ex-wife's consent. For starters, even if they were still together, they probably would have to adopt their own child. (Depending on the jurisdiction, of course) And if they were not found fit, the surrogate could end up with the child. With Findley out of the picture, Lee would adopt her own child by herself, and since she adopted while she was single, Findley is off the hook.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18 2015, @11:40AM
Now IANAL, but you said "even if they were still together, they probably would have to adopt their own child. (Depending on the jurisdiction, of course)" as she would be using a surrogate, however they key words are "Depending on the jurisdiction". Do you not think as Lee so desperately wants to have her own child she might ensure the surrogacy happens in a jurisdiction where that won't be an issue for her?
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @10:20PM
If ownership wasn't explicitly agreed on then they each get half of the fertilized embryos.
That should be "half of each embryo", Solomon!
(Score: 3, Funny) by davester666 on Thursday July 16 2015, @03:44AM
Hey, yeah. Just take out the sperm!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @01:48PM
"Here's your 23 chromosomes (not pairs), have fun with it"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18 2015, @11:45AM
If that were possible, that would be a good solution, then she could get them fertilised by someone else. As they signed a contract which dealt with the contingency of divorce, I'm wondering why she didn't also have some unfertilised eggs frozen.
(Score: 3, Informative) by penguinoid on Wednesday July 15 2015, @11:08PM
Sounds like consent was already given. That deed is done.
Yes, if she didn't want the embryos destroyed in case of divorce, she shouldn't have consented to exactly that. That's the problem with people who delude themselves into thinking that nothing bad will ever happen to them, optimists get divorced too. So now she can't have children and has consented to have her last embryos destroyed, but wants to change her mind.
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday July 15 2015, @11:33PM
> So now she can't have children
She's 46 !!!!!
Most women can't have (statistically healthy) children at 46. She's got not grounds for pleading that it's a terrible unforseen ordeal.
She'd be retired before her kids go to college, too. just because you could, doesn't mean that you should...
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday July 16 2015, @01:42AM
How this bears any relevance? Anthony Quinn fathered his last child at the age of 81, 5 years before his death [wikipedia.org].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cubancigar11 on Thursday July 16 2015, @06:27AM
Anthony Quinn had money. This woman has none or will have none left after paying the attorney fee. Then she will demand maintenance and alimony and there is no legal precedent to deny that. It really is the problem with the law that maintains that a woman must be paid in all circumstances and a man must be made to pay in all circumstances.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday July 16 2015, @02:14AM
There are more risks associated with older mothers, but modern medicine can manage most of those. But there has been a lot of research lately that says older parents make better parents [livescience.com]. The gist of it is that older parents are more emotionally mature and have more, relevant life experience to guide their kids.
That feels right to me. My wife and I had our first in our late 30's. I know I wouldn't have been emotionally ready before then. Had I had kids in my 20's, I'd be dealing with some messed up children now because I would have made lots of rookie mistakes. And that's not terribly incongruent with what my parents' generation would say about having kids (they were all married by their early 20's), in that they'd have to screw up the first couple of kids before they figured out what they were doing.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by choose another one on Thursday July 16 2015, @09:00AM
We're all rookies with kids, even having had three I don't think I'm not - every kid is different, the more you think you've learned from the others the more likely you are to get stuff 'wrong' through dogmatic insistence in following what worked for older siblings. If you've had nine kids your still a rookie with the tenth.
I am 46 now, had kids early 30's and if I have any regret, it's not doing it earlier. Starting out with another one now would be scary. By school age you're going to be 50s and probably mistaken for grandparents at school gate. By time they are 10 and wanting to do exciting active things you are going to be acting like grandparents, while the actual grandparents are probably in a care home, or dead.
Having kids is what makes you mature, younger parents just have to learn it a lot faster - IMO.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:31PM
Having kids is what makes you mature
"mature" is a subjective term in this case. And I'd say having kids is far from the only thing that makes you "mature". Not everyone wants children, and they are not any worse than you because of it.
(Score: 2) by penguinoid on Thursday July 16 2015, @02:49AM
She's 46 !!!!!
Most women can't have (statistically healthy) children at 46. She's got not grounds for pleading that it's a terrible unforseen ordeal.
It wasn't unforeseen -- she got frozen embryos for exactly that eventuality. What she didn't foresee was that she'd divorce her fiance before having children, so didn't mind checking the box that says "sure, destroy the embryos in case of divorce, that'll never happen anyways."
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @01:51PM
Unforeseen? If she can't foresee even that will she be a good parent?
With 7+ billion on this planet already are we really desperate for more children to be born? Especially from parents like her?
Yes I know there are plenty of worse parents around, but the point is will she be such a great parent with such great genes that its worth allowing the contract to be broken for her? So far the evidence is no.
(Score: 1) by ese002 on Thursday July 16 2015, @12:40AM
Sounds like consent was already given. That deed is done.
Yes, if she didn't want the embryos destroyed in case of divorce, she shouldn't have consented to exactly that. That's the problem with people who delude themselves into thinking that nothing bad will ever happen to them, optimists get divorced too. So now she can't have children and has consented to have her last embryos destroyed, but wants to change her mind.
While I mostly agree with you, it seems like a very big issue to handled by checking a box and initialing.
TFA:
Findley, the first witness, testified that both he and Lee had read the consent agreements before signing. She checked a box that said the embryos would be destroyed if they divorced, and both initialed the page, he said.
(Score: 3, Funny) by fleg on Thursday July 16 2015, @02:29AM
>seems like a very big issue to handled by checking a box and initialing.
perhaps hand carving it in stone?
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:37PM
Sell them to Trump! He could have his chef cook them up and eat them live at some sort of RNC event!
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:38PM
Pretty sure breast cancer is one of those with a high degree of heritability. Basically she wants to create defective humans.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:42PM
Next up: Lawsuits for bills, pain and suffering over medical conditions brought about by your being brought into existence against your will.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday July 16 2015, @01:19AM
Just looking around at the general populace, I'm pretty sure almost everyone is defective in one way or another, and is going to create more defective humans if they breed.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:51PM
If she really had a deep need to procreate she should have started sooner. I think he's going to win this one (but much depends on who has the best lawyers, etc...)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by scruffybeard on Thursday July 16 2015, @01:20AM
Or perhaps frozen her eggs, in addition to fertilized embryos.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Non Sequor on Thursday July 16 2015, @01:58AM
If he wins, he's still fertile, and all of the eggs that she put in one basket (*teehee*) are gone. I wouldn't want to be the judge who makes that outcome actually happen.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @05:05AM
It's not as if it's impossible for her to have children, especially now with as much scientific knowledge as we have. In fact, some studies suggest that older parents make better parents because they have more experience. Furthermore, even if it isn't, there is a high probability that the government will harass him over child support. Does that sound fair to you?
She can always adopt, but that's unthinkable, isn't it? The fact that she agreed to this settles the deal to me. Why the hell should she be able to get out of it now?
(Score: 2) by iamjacksusername on Thursday July 16 2015, @03:26PM
I mentioned adoption to a friend who was having trouble conceiving with his wife... you'd think I was talking about murdering his yet to be made babies from the reaction I got. The urge to reproduce biological offspring is irrational.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday July 16 2015, @06:32AM
That's very much the problem with judiciary. Judges don't want to be the one dispensing justice.
It is very much by design, though. Judiciary doesn't exist to dispense justice, it exists to pacify larger populace that doesn't have patience to wait until the biblical Judgment Day comes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18 2015, @11:52AM
But why should anyone be content to wait for something that isn't going to happen, ever.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Sunday July 19 2015, @03:35AM
The question is that people shouldn't be content with 'judgement day', they should be content with justice. If we were chasing justice, how soon judgement day comes will only be an optimization.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Kilo110 on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:57PM
Why did they freeze embryos instead of the sperm and eggs separately?
on another note.
"If a child is genetically his … he will participate in the child’s life,”
^^ this case will make for an awkward conversation "yeah sorry kiddo, I sued your mother to have you destroyed and lost... Want to go play ball?"
(Score: 5, Informative) by penguinoid on Wednesday July 15 2015, @11:13PM
Why did they freeze embryos instead of the sperm and eggs separately?
The embryos survive better than the eggs when frozen (barring agreements to destroy them in case of divorce).
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @11:15PM
Never is a long time.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday July 15 2015, @11:46PM
True, but one person's lifetime isn't.To say nothing of a woman's viable reproduction window. Even going with a surrogate, trying to raise and support a child starting in her sixties (a paltry 14 years from now) would have the youngest graduating high school when she's roughly 80. That's a real challenge there.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ese002 on Wednesday July 15 2015, @11:39PM
TFS:
If the embryos are destroyed, the ex-wife is denied the deep need to procreate.
Lee has a strong desire to procreate. She may have a right to procreate within physical limitations. But no individual has a need to procreate. Neither her life or health are endangered by inability to bear a biological child. If she wants to become a parent, even that is not significantly impaired by the inability to bear a biological child.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @12:05AM
> But no individual has a need to procreate.
The species does. And if no individual has that need, how can the species have it?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ese002 on Thursday July 16 2015, @12:28AM
But no individual has a need to procreate.
The species does. And if no individual has that need, how can the species have it?
There are seven billion individuals. So long as as a few hundred of those seven billion procreate, the needs of the species are met. No particular individual needs to procreate and the species would actually be better served if most individuals did not procreate. If/when the population gets down to the thousands, it may be necessary for individuals to their duty but for now, reproduction is a selfish act.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday July 16 2015, @02:05AM
Yes, and it's also probably the most hardwired urge we have. That goes about double for women. You haven't seen crazy until you a see a childless, single woman hit 40 and her biological clock goes shproing!
It's of course possible to both satisfy that drive and address overpopulation by having every woman have an average of fewer than 2.33 children (the replacement level of fertility [wikipedia.org]).
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:48AM
Teenage boy's desire to have sex with every woman available for the foreseeable future or 40 year old woman's desire to have sex with one man...
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:48AM
Yes, and it's also probably the most hardwired urge we have.
That most of us have, anyway.
And look where that has got us. Horrible overpopulation. Frankly, if you can't control yourself, you are weak and inconsequential.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:03PM
I know right, because you always hear about how children are starving in the streets in First World Countries. Oh..., right, You Don't, because we have things like Homeless Shelters, Food Banks, and Soup Kitchens. The main problem is that there is extreme poverty in areas where there isn't much else to do except have children and try to survive. Also, if you are in extreme poverty, having kids can spread the burden out. Assuming those kids make it to adulthood.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:24PM
I know right, because you always hear about how children are starving in the streets in First World Countries. Oh..., right, You Don't, because we have things like Homeless Shelters, Food Banks, and Soup Kitchens.
I'm not quite seeing your point. It could be worse, so it's not bad? Interesting straw man you had there, as well.
We need a global population decline and a change in attitude. Reducing poverty will help with this, but that alone might not be good enough.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:57PM
My point is that reducing the population in First World Countries won't help the Countries in Extreme Poverty. Also, the countries in extreme poverty don't see a need to reduce their procreation.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:59PM
We should try to help there as well, certainly. But I never suggested otherwise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18 2015, @11:59AM
I think it is disgraceful that supposedly first world countries need things like homeless shelters, food banks and soup kitchens. I think modern society still has a long way to go before it is truly civilised.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:52PM
Did you miss the part where people can have children and still have populations go down? You don't need to have zero children for overpopulation to recede. You just need to have fewer than 2.33 per woman.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @05:09PM
I must have missed the event where most people decided to be more selfless, more rational, and more coordinated.
Well, we probably don't necessarily need that to happen. The right policies and the right conditions could help bring what you say about.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday July 16 2015, @05:23PM
More education and career opportunities for women seems to do the trick, too. Reference the declining birth rates of most industrialized countries.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:41AM
As the resident reactionary, I entirely disagree with you. Most advanced countries, East and West, are suffering a birth rate crisis that will see native population declines over the foreseeable future. The decline in people will cause economic decline. This is why our political masters are replacing the existing population with "migrants" or "refugees", to the permanent detriment to the long term security and national culture. What is effectively happening is a slow genocide, not unlike the one the natives of North America experienced. Or compare the birth rates of France and Germany over the last two hundred years to see the security implications.
And this is all because people have been choosing new cars and bigger homes over having an extra child or two. So the truly selfish are those conspicuously consuming as much as they can for the purposes of leisure and social standing. Your cars will rust, your backyard pool will crack, your parties will end, but if you have children you will always have something to be rightfully proud of.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:51AM
There is no decline in population. Yes birthrates, but those are more taken up by immigrants. It is people of European ethnicity that are dropping in number and being replaced by everyone else. Someday diversity might mean hiring a white guy. Then again, no country outside the western world even gives a second thought to equality, so that might never happen.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Thursday July 16 2015, @09:18AM
Then again, no country outside the western world even gives a second thought to equality, so that might never happen.
That's not true. India, for instance, has "scheduled tribes" and "scheduled castes" where they have affirmative action to try to make up for arbitrary families being shut out of all but the "dirtiest" jobs for thousands of years because the state religion said so. They get preferences in college admissions and stuff. People still discriminate against the "lower castes" in India, but, from what I read, it's starting to disappear in urban areas at least. Culturally ingrained, religion-based familial discrimination is nasty stuff; it'll probably take them quite a while to eradicate it completely.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by cubancigar11 on Thursday July 16 2015, @01:17PM
It is the opposite. After the introduction of affirmative action, caste based discrimination has been found to increase. While the general educated populace at the time of independence (~70 years ago) used to think that caste-ism will get eradicated eventually, current zeitgeist is that it exists everywhere. Thanks to affirmative action some very smart people are now doing caste politics instead of engineering or medicine.
Btw, SC/STs have not been oppressed for "thousands of years". They are in exactly the same situation where Europe was before industrialization. In fact, early colonizers of India held castes as a superior way to control society than aristocracy that was outright based on violence and physical power.
It is also well documented that caste was a fluid concept that invited its treatment according to how much power one held. For example, Guptas [wikipedia.org] were running a dynasty but now are a merchant class. Shrivastavas [wikipedia.org] were originally fighters from present day Afganistan but are now known for maintaining ledgers and generally being mathematicians.
Scheduled tribe is a different concept altogether. They were literally tribes which controlled large swathes of forest land before the Government of independent India tried to 'educate' and 'upbring' them because those lands held minerals and tribes were really tribal - death by arrows are still common - that couldn't be controlled like pest as the British did with gun.
The ugliest form of caste-ism, which is how it is shown in media, exists in Indian villages that are still largely agrarian. And I think it will only be solved by industrialization. A capitalist cannot afford to not hire someone due to his/her caste.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @05:00AM
Most advanced countries, East and West, are suffering a birth rate crisis that will see native population declines over the foreseeable future.
We need global population declines.
The decline in people will cause economic decline.
Well, too bad. Any system that relies on infinite growth or unsustainable population levels is flawed beyond belief. Yes, there will be some growing pains, but it's ultimately necessary. What else would you have us do? Maintain unsustainable population growth so that the mystical, magical, and all-important 'conomy can thrive? That seems a bit shortsighted.
What is effectively happening is a slow genocide, not unlike the one the natives of North America experienced.
How the hell is that genocide?
Or compare the birth rates of France and Germany over the last two hundred years to see the security implications.
Not seeing it. Are you by chance referring to the terrorist bogeyman? Because I'm not a sucker, so I don't buy into the notion that it's as big of a problem as lots of fearmongers claim, especially in first world countries.
And this is all because people have been choosing new cars and bigger homes over having an extra child or two.
Excessive waste is also a problem. We shouldn't replace the excessive waste with more children, however.
but if you have children you will always have something to be rightfully proud of.
Not everyone wants children, so speak for yourself.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by linuxrocks123 on Thursday July 16 2015, @09:09AM
And this is all because people have been choosing new cars and bigger homes over having an extra child or two. So the truly selfish are those conspicuously consuming as much as they can for the purposes of leisure and social standing. Your cars will rust, your backyard pool will crack, your parties will end, but if you have children you will always have something to be rightfully proud of.
My life will end. After that, I'll have nothing to be proud of except the impact I had on the world while alive. Part of that impact is living a good life for myself, which I could never do with a whiny, needy, mentally immature human dragging me down for two decades. Another part is helping other people. Helping a child grow up is certainly one way to have an impact on the world, but there are less pedestrian ways, too, such as taking seriously a career where you have the potential to help others through your work. And having a child is more of a crap shoot because the child might be defective somehow and be a net negative for the world. It's really rolling the dice.
If western countries think having children is so important, they should subsidize it. But I think we have enough people around. We really don't need that many.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:51AM
Most individuals have the desire, but it's not a need. The species has no needs because it's not actually an individual; it describes a collective.
I would suggest adopting, since many children who don't have homes already exist, but that would be insane.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday July 16 2015, @07:29PM
The species also doesn't "need" anything. Planet Earth doesn't "need" humans. The Universe doesn't "need" Planet Earth. Etc.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Thursday July 16 2015, @05:14AM
What I don't understand is why does he protest her having children even if from his sperm? Does he really think he's going to be responsible for the kids? Fer Cress sakes...she's well able to provide for the kids. Let her have her offspring.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @05:36AM
Does he really think he's going to be responsible for the kids?
Under our insane laws, this may well be the case. Is he going to be protected from having to provide child support if the government decides that he needs to, or if she suddenly decides that she wants it? I don't know, but I can see why someone would be worried about that possibility.
That sperm donor [usatoday.com] case mentioned above is ridiculous, but I don't think it applies in this case. Still, it shows that there may be many laws someone is not aware of, and if they somehow run afoul of them, someone can be stuck paying child support even if no one in the situation wants that to happen.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @08:47AM
>2015
>not knowing about "sperm liability"
These are dangerous times for men.
Women are ever increasingly viewing men as walking ATM's.
Women are now using rape accusations to summon the power of the government against unruly and undesirable men.
Any voice against this insanity is met with cries of "misogynist" or "patriarchy".
Normal women don't fight it because what do they care? They aren't men. They just keep getting more and more power.
Normal men don't fight it because their too driven by succubi.
I've said it for years now, Japan and Korea are decades ahead of the west when it comes to "social progress".
In both countries you see declining birthrates caused by overly picky women who only want to marry and procreate with the top 1% of men.
Haven't you noticed the falling birthrates in the US?
Women have been given the civilized world, and they're running it into the ground with feel good policies driven by gynocentric ideals.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaganar on Thursday July 16 2015, @03:33PM
Back in the 60's women's median earnings were generally just under 60% of that of men. Now it's nearing 80%. That goes from men "making nearly twice as much" to "making a quarter more" -- big difference. (See here [pay-equity.org])
That's been done for decades, nothing new here. Shocking proportions of women (Google it for yourself, you'll pull numbers well above 10%) have also been raped for decades, nothing new here. As a guy, I think I'm on the better end of the bargain since I'm less likely to be accused of rape or raped than women are likely to be raped.
I'm going to go with "childish" here. Looking up statistics on this sort of stuff has landed me on many alarmist "news for the masculine hetero male" type of websites which all amusingly sound like the male equivalents of feminists. Frankly, I find most (not all) strong feminists (and manimists?) to be excess noise, just like I find most strong republicans or democrats to be excess noise -- I prefer to experience my fictional dramas via books.
You have a very strange definition [wikipedia.org] of social progress. No, I rather think Japan (and Korea) have more (and definitely not socially progressive) issues than "women don't want to have babies with scrubs and wankers." Honestly, your viewpoint here is rather alien to me -- is the problem that you're worried we won't be able to out-fuck the other countries anymore? Let me tell you, we better look out for those impoverished African countries [wikipedia.org], then!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:16PM
That's been done for decades, nothing new here. Shocking proportions of women (Google it for yourself, you'll pull numbers well above 10%) have also been raped for decades, nothing new here.
How can they verify that the rapes took place with no actual evidence? In many cases, there are no court cases (thus no convictions), and there are no real standards of evidence. Different definitions of "rape" are sometimes used, depending on the sources. So while rape rates are almost certainly higher than the official government sources state (because people will get away with crimes), determining how high they actually are is next to impossible unless you make unscientific assumptions.
As a guy, I think I'm on the better end of the bargain since I'm less likely to be accused of rape or raped than women are likely to be raped.
"Better" does not mean "good".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @01:01PM
Yeah, she won't sue him for child support and take half his money or anything. People don't do things like that especially not after a bitter divorce. She would become the first woman in history to have somebody's kid just to keep a father financially strapped for the majority of his adult life. I'll bet she's well able to take care of that kid without the father like you said. She just needs his money is all, but this is about those unborn babies and their precious genetic expression (that resulted in breast cancer in the mother), not him and the large amount cash that could be legally taken from him if those non-existant children suddenly crawled out of that freezer.
(Score: 2) by quacking duck on Thursday July 16 2015, @01:59PM
Ignoring alimony for a second: What if she dies in the next few years? She's already had a breast cancer diagnosis. Who do you think will be handed responsibility for caring of a minor? At 45, her own parents will not be up to the responsibility, if they're still alive. Her siblings? You can bet they'd be demanding money to help with a child that's suddenly put in their care.
Any way you slice it, the former husband will be on the hook financially one way or another, and he is well within reason for wanting to end this before it goes further.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by iamjacksusername on Thursday July 16 2015, @03:31PM
We keep close track of nuclear material because, if some asshole gets their hands on it, they could put it together with some other stuff they have and blow up your life. In the same way, a man needs to keep close track of his sperm; if he doesn't, some asshole could get her hands on it, put it together with some other stuff she has and blow up his life.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @03:58PM
There are going to be more and more cases like this. Sofia Vergara had embryos with her ex-fiance and in that case he wanted a surrogate to bring the embryos to term.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/24/sofia-vergara-embryo-lawsuit-nick-loeb-custody_n_7432114.html [huffingtonpost.com]
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:50PM
The real ethical dilemma is should they have even done it in the first place? A large portion of our society is pro abortion and don't see any problems with this kind of thing. Personally, leaving the embryos and never using them, thus relegating them to die, is abortion. Life happens at conception or in this case, clinical fertilization. Purposeful destruction of Embryos, is Murder. That being said, I am actually pro choice, because it should be up to them and the Doctor. There are a few extremely rare cases where it would actually be the right thing to induce an abortion. There are detectable diseases that are 100% fatal for the children born and they pretty much suffer the entire time they are alive. Certain cases like that and perhaps a few others may be acceptable as you aren't Murdering them.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday July 16 2015, @07:42PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday July 16 2015, @08:06PM
In your opinion they aren't. In my opinion. They most definitely are.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday July 16 2015, @08:23PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday July 16 2015, @09:56PM
The problem is your definition of what you call a person and what I call a person. Murder is what I call it as the embryo is a person. At this point all I would be doing is accusing someone of murder. It would be up to the courts to decide. I can say that it's murder, but I could be proven wrong. I'm not automatically wrong and am not making a legal pronouncement.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"