I don’t know if any of you have been following this case, but they were married and went through a divorce. He wants to use their frozen embryos with a surrogate, and she wants them to stay frozen.
Now, when a woman wants an abortion against a man’s wish, she’s allowed to have one despite the fact that he contributed sperm and DNA because the SCOTUS determined that the right to privacy means an individual is allowed to have an abortion because your body is sacrosanct (unless you want to take drugs or drink raw milk and in those cases those men from the state will show up and fuck your shit up). Ahem.
Well now the embryo’s are outside of the body and belong equally to both. Property law kicks in and the one who wishes to use property from a marriage has more rights than the person who does not. A judge is allowing oral agreements in this case to stand as legal agreements (Kim Bassinger knows all about that) and now it looks like he might gain control of the property, in this case fetuses.
For some reason feminists are siding with her, which I think is a bit unfair. If a female owns it outside of the womb, that’s a different argument and can open up the field for men to disavow children insofar as custody agreements.
Should be interesting to see how this plays out