When I read the headline, my first instinct was, frankly, sheer rage at the prospect of a man being forced to inseminate a woman against his will..

"Far worse a crime than rape" I was thinking..

But no, this headline is totally misleading and the situation is not at all along those lines really.

If the first rule of the mens movement is to be followed "prove at all times that the MRM is not misogynist", then this is totally failing on that score..

It is really just a case of a vindictive ex husband seeking to punish his ex wife.

And what worse and more cruel punishment can be imagined than to effective force the woman to have a childless life, and ABORT a child that was concieved long before they split and when they clearly agreed to have child..

Why would a man seek to do such a thing?

Why is it something that the MRM aught to support?

I think if the MRM supports such nasty stuff it may as well take the most logical step from this and demand that all fathers have to right to force women carrying their children to abort if they don't want a child with them.

The fertilisation of the egg from a consenting male and female sperm is a contract to create a life and that was done and some things simply should not be considered something one can back out of.. Matters of life and death..

Its bad enough that divorce is so easily granted, another "contract for life" ignored because madam has lost her knockers or sir has met a fresh piece of pie..

Nah, let the poor woman have her child as was originally agreed.

Quote from felixblue

When I read the headline, my first instinct was, frankly, sheer rage at the prospect of a man being forced to inseminate a woman against his will..

"Far worse a crime than rape" I was thinking..

But no, this headline is totally misleading and the situation is not at all along those lines really.

If the first rule of the mens movement is to be followed "prove at all times that the MRM is not misogynist", then this is totally failing on that score..

It is really just a case of a vindictive ex husband seeking to punish his ex wife.

And what worse and more cruel punishment can be imagined than to effective force the woman to have a childless life, and ABORT a child that was concieved long before they split and when they clearly agreed to have child..

Why would a man seek to do such a thing?

Why is it something that the MRM aught to support?

I think if the MRM supports such nasty stuff it may as well take the most logical step from this and demand that all fathers have to right to force women carrying their children to abort if they don't want a child with them.

The fertilisation of the egg from a consenting male and female sperm is a contract to create a life and that was done and some things simply should not be considered something one can back out of.. Matters of life and death..

Its bad enough that divorce is so easily granted, another "contract for life" ignored because madam has lost her knockers or sir has met a fresh piece of pie..

Nah, let the poor woman have her child as was originally agreed.

This man is being forced to reproduce with someone he no longer wants to be a co-parent with. That is what is at issue here. Now, if you believe that the decision to become a parent happens when an embryo is conceived then fine. Be a pro lifer!

However, these two people signed an agreement with the storage facility that the embryos were to be destroyed after three years and the three years had passed. Now the guy has a new life and should not have to be forced into the role of parent of a child he clearly doesn't want to have. And if you think that this guy will not end up paying child support then you are dreaming. She says that she won't pursue any child support arrangement now but I can guarantee that the courts will enforce her will if she changes her mind.

Tell me something, do think that it would be ok if the sexes were reversed and there was no other way for a man to have a child except with frozen embryos produced during his marriage with a woman who ended up leaving him for the pool boy after he had problems with not only his fertility but his ability to have an erection due to chemo or some other medical situation? Do you think that in the case of him getting a surrogate for the embryo that she should be forced to pay child support for his unilateral decision to use embryos created with her eggs? I would be totaly outraged for her in that case even if she did leave her husband for a "fresh piece of pie."

She had other options open to her before this all happened. She could have saved one of her eggs without getting fertilized (which I would have insisted she done if I were the husband) but she did not. For what ever reason (and those reasons are no ones business but the individuals involved) the marriage ended and with it was any consent to have children if they were not already born to the couple.

What is happening to this man is an outrage!

I dont see why he has to be a parent to the child, or why he should have to pay child support, but yes, of course that state will allow the woman to claim it, we know the score there. But thats another issue and if thats all he is bothered about then what a saddo..

There is a point regards the agreement that the embryos be destroyed after 3 years if that is the case but I guess my pro-life sentiments outweigh my tendancy to think that a mans natural authority to head his family should extend to killing the unborn members of his matrimonial arrangements.. Which I simply dont believe is any more correct than saying that a fathers natural right to head his family should extend to breaking his wifes arms, legs, etc..

I dont regard divorce as a valid concept either, even less than remarraige as some way of rubbing out the past contracts made and as for "new lifes" I hear that sort of thing from folks all the time and again its a weak excuse to turn your back on your deals that is so often used.. Usually by women..

The man is being a bit of bastard denying the woman of her chance of motherhood in my opinion and I am sure this is how most folks would see it. Very petty really.

If this man is "truly sufferring some outrageous treatment" I wonder what could be said of the many millions of men who did not make dickish choices that they later regretted but got keelhauled in the courts for being nice chaps..

Just my opinion, at the end of the day I think its ultimately the business of the folks who made the deal, my libertarian pro-freedom anti-statism beliefs usually override what are my personal beliefs that I do not have any business imposing on others..

I still think he was a plonker for the reasons you mentioned (he did not need to fertilise the eggs) and a nasty vindictive bastard who is just out to punish his ex when really he should not be worried too much and certainly should have considered the possibility that something like this would have happened..

And if the scenario was reversed, yes, I think he should have the rights to the babies and the right plonk them in some other grow bag..

But then again perhaps the 3 year destruction clause is the key thing here not the morality of the issue.. It is actually a strange situation when one is dealing with human cells that are not actually implanted in the egg pouch..

Quote from felixblue

When I read the headline, my first instinct was, frankly, sheer rage at the prospect of a man being forced to inseminate a woman against his will..

"Far worse a crime than rape" I was thinking..

But no, this headline is totally misleading and the situation is not at all along those lines really.

If the first rule of the mens movement is to be followed "prove at all times that the MRM is not misogynist", then this is totally failing on that score..

It is really just a case of a vindictive ex husband seeking to punish his ex wife.

And what worse and more cruel punishment can be imagined than to effective force the woman to have a childless life, and ABORT a child that was concieved long before they split and when they clearly agreed to have child..

Why would a man seek to do such a thing?

Why is it something that the MRM aught to support?

I think if the MRM supports such nasty stuff it may as well take the most logical step from this and demand that all fathers have to right to force women carrying their children to abort if they don't want a child with them.

The fertilisation of the egg from a consenting male and female sperm is a contract to create a life and that was done and some things simply should not be considered something one can back out of.. Matters of life and death..

Its bad enough that divorce is so easily granted, another "contract for life" ignored because madam has lost her knockers or sir has met a fresh piece of pie..

Nah, let the poor woman have her child as was originally agreed.

So, do you think it's ok for a man to force a woman to become a parent against her will?

Quote from Garak

So, do you think it's ok for a man to force a woman to become a parent against her will?

no. and nor do I believe it is ok for a woman to force a man to be one against his will either. This man doesnt have any need at all to have anything to do with the child.

Quote from felixblue

no. and nor do I believe it is ok for a woman to force a man to be one against his will either. This man doesnt have any need at all to have anything to do with the child.

It's not that simple and you know it.

You said this yourself:

I dont see why he has to be a parent to the child, or why he should have to pay child support, but yes, of course that state will allow the woman to claim it, we know the score there. But thats another issue and if thats all he is bothered about then what a saddo..

Quote from Garak

It's not that simple and you know it.

You said this yourself:

It seems pretty simple to me..

He made a stupid decision (or 3) and like every other man who does that he has to pay the price.

If folk can go round changing their minds about what they want every 5 minutes we are in sad city eh?

I dont believe in the concept of child support dictated by the state and nor do I believe that men have any obligation to pay as much as one cent or spend as much as 1 second with any child they dont want to deal with.

Quote from rohara

The MRM really really needs to raise a stink about this in a big way.

Article here



The result of the appeal:




I truly hope that this makes it to the Supreme Court. Even then, we all know how courts tend to rule on this stuff. We should do everything we can to raise public awareness about this case it is very very important.

This is a very dangerous situation for all men. If an ex-wife can force pregnancy by her ex-husband, that throws open the doors for conscripted fatherhood by the state with all the child support and financial destruction of the man. This isn't just not right, this is a freaking assault on procreation and a the rights of men to say "NO" to being a parent. We live in dark times my brothers. This court case and legal situation is unbearable for all men.

I think they waited too long to get married and have children in the first place. That child would be practically growing up with grandparents.

Let us not conflate several wrongs in order to support a questionable 'right'.

The man was unfaithful. He lacks Integrity.

The woman refuses, like many couples do, to accept the limitations of Nature and her barreness. She sought to subvert nature with a 'test-tube' embryo. This entire field is rife with ethical dillemmas.

The Courts have been drawn it at their request.

The 'Rights' of each party, dependant as they are on mere desire, are ertzatz. They are artificial.

The only 'Men's Rights' issue I can see here is the future demand upon his pocket.

I doubt any here will want to argue that he has a responsibility to his child. H has not discharged his responsibilities in the past and is unlikely to do so in the future unless he regains the Manhood he has so easily thrown away.

Both of them have made ruinous choices. With that being said, no man should be forced against his will to impregnate any female.

Quote from felixblue

When I read the headline, my first instinct was, frankly, sheer rage at the prospect of a man being forced to inseminate a woman against his will..

"Far worse a crime than rape" I was thinking..

But no, this headline is totally misleading and the situation is not at all along those lines really.

I agree. Sensationalist headlines that are factually incorrect are bothersome and we do no good to repeat them here.

Quote from felixblue

If the first rule of the mens movement is to be followed "prove at all times that the MRM is not misogynist", then this is totally failing on that score..

It is really just a case of a vindictive ex husband seeking to punish his ex wife.

I don't follow either of these statements. It is not misogynist to want to keep to agreements. On the surface, he broke his marital agreement and, if so, that is as despicable as such divorces always are. However, from what I understand the embryos should have already been destroyed by their joint agreements and the use of them should be a joint decision. It is not usually vindictive to not want children with someone: for most men, it is a far deeper issue than that and modern U.S. society adds a whole new layer of concern by being able to bankrupt and jail a man by demanding more in child support than he can possibly pay.

Quote from felixblue

Why is it something that the MRM aught to support?

A better point than to rail against the entire concept of supporting this one man is to consider what this judgement can mean for all men. We don't have to support this man in any way at all to see dangerous precedent in the legal decision against him.

Women already have huge choices in terms of parenthood and making a man - often, just about ANY man - pay for their choices.

Men already have minimal choices in terms of parenthood, including making their woman bear a child she conceives with him or being able to raise his child if she wishes otherwise. One of the feminist mantras is that if a man doesn't want a child he should 'keep it in his pants' as though only the man is liable for his actions.

With this judgement, even keeping it in his pants might not be sufficient.

Quote from felixblue

I think if the MRM supports such nasty stuff it may as well take the most logical step from this and demand that all fathers have to right to force women carrying their children to abort if they don't want a child with them.

All mothers have a right to force a man to abort their children if they don't want a child with them. If abortion is acceptable, then why is it not acceptable for either parent to force the abortion on the other? Why should it only be a woman's choice?

All mothers have a right to force a man (and not even necessarily the father) to finance their child, regardless of the man's wishes. That the man's agreement was not sought, or if he was deceived into being a father, or even if he was raped, has no regard in most western countries to his financial liability and in some countries if he does not make himself a part of the child's life, he can be ordered into counselling, or even to live near wherever the woman chooses to live with the child.

Remember, even if a man is raped he is legally liable. Even if he was under legal age at the time. That's a woman unlawfully forcing a man. If it becomes lawful for a woman to force an unwilling man to be be a father, then men truly are slaves and we all must fear what could happen, or be castrated (which might not be enough since he doesn't actually have to be the father, to be made financially liable).

Quote from felixblue

The fertilisation of the egg from a consenting male and female sperm is a contract to create a life and that was done and some things simply should not be considered something one can back out of.. Matters of life and death..

Its bad enough that divorce is so easily granted, another "contract for life" ignored because madam has lost her knockers or sir has met a fresh piece of pie..

Nah, let the poor woman have her child as was originally agreed.

It was not agreed that the woman would have 'her' child after three years. Nor would it have been understood that the agreement would continue past divorce, though I don't suppose that was written down.

While I have some sympathies for this woman, just as I have for the millions of men robbed of fatherhood by women aborting their children, the precedents that this case sets are far too important to consider either party's wishes.

Already, the courts have refused to consider the issue of finance - and being made to support a child he didn't want is no small matter for an average man with a family. The next precedent would be an argument over a man's stored semen, the one after that over whether he should donate semen. This precedent must be stopped right here.

Added after 33 minutes:

PaCases » Reber v. Reiss, 2012 Pa. Super. 86

...the Court [declined] to enforce a clause in the IVF agreement that Reber and Reiss signed that would have required destruction of the pre-embryos.

Summary Judgments for Dec. 20

Many fertility centers make couples agree on embryo divorce scenarios ahead of time, but without such an agreement, the courts in most states have been pretty clear. "The rationale is that people have a right to change their minds, and nobody should be forced to become a parent against his or her wishes," say Susan Crockin, an adoption and reproductive-technology lawyer in Massachusetts. No high court in any state has ruled in favor of a woman who wanted to use embryos when the ex-husband opposed it.

Quote from rohara

She had other options open to her before this all happened. She could have saved one of her eggs without getting fertilized (which I would have insisted she done if I were the husband) but she did not.

Apparently, freezing eggs is nowhere near as successful as freezing embryos (or "pre-embryos" whatever that is), so it could have been a simple technical decision: without his sperm fertilizing her eggs, the entire opportunity for a child could have been lost.

Who owns frozen embryos?
It's easy to judge against the man's actions because he filed for divorce. We don't know why: it could be his wife's infidelity for all we know. He seems to be either an idiot or an optimist but there's little information we have on which:

In court papers, Mr. Reber argued he never intended to have children with Ms. Reiss, and that the couple created the embryos shortly after Ms. Reiss was diagnosed with cancer only as a “safeguard” in the event he changed his mind

The appeal judgement:
BRET HOWARD REBER v. ANDREA LYNN REISS, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA; No. 1351 EDA 2011 (PDF, 55KB)

This entire scenario is insane. Trying to extract a partisan argument out of it for the benefit of men is creepy.

This sort of science combined with this sort of law denigrates the humanity of all parties, primarily the child's.

From what I have seen, this alleged "movement" is so desperate for heroes and martyrs that its publicists will seize on any case that even remotely promises some "proof" of misandry, and uses these weird, crackpot stories to try and establish that there is some sort of institutional conspiracy to destroy manhood itself. The problem is that there doesn't need to be a conspiracy. Men have allowed our sense of chivalry and fair play (almost unknown to women) to be used to enslave and demean us, and all too often we become our own worst enemies for agreeing to it. Things we could not even imagine doing, like taking a child away from a parent, are commonplace for women, and male lawyers, judges and civil servants go along with it out of apparent fear of what their wives will say or do if they take a stand for sane and honorable behavior.

Thanks, but I'm not hitching my need for justice to the domestic abusers and pussy-whipped eunuchs of the world. I wish this site and others would publish stories about ordinary, rational, decent men who are victimized by the philosophy of female supremacy and children-as-property for mothers, instead of scraping the bottom for the most bizarre, atypical, sensationalist stories to be found. A man promising a child to a woman under any circumstances outside of a mutual, consensual, normal wish to parent a child together is no ally of mine.

If this site can't find its focus and start appealing to real-world men facing the real-world nightmares of maternal abduction and woman-dominant parenting, I'm going to have to move on. My circumstances require much more rational and much less emotionally provocative support and exchange than what I am finding here.

this site does not need to "focus" as such but it would be good if folks could use the opportunities here provided to form allegiances with folk who have similar beliefs and work together in groups of even small numbers that could be mutually more powerful than some disjointed and massively destractable grand cause that is labelled "the mrm"..

I don't believe this particular issue is one for me, but that does not stop others from joining in the campaign if they believe in it..

Its those that "do" who change things, not those who merely chatter amongst themselves and swap loser stories..