How would you guys feel if your wife insisted that you get a vasectomy.

Then divorces you afterwards.

Later on in your new marriage you cannot have kids, but your ex-wife is having children in her new marriage.

Would you feel like she was being a nice person, even if what she did was legal?
Lets turn this round, is your ex wife supposed to NOT have kids that she wants, just because you of your own free will agreed to have a vasectomy, knowing that it was probably irreversible? Why? Why shouldn't you take responsibility for what you signed up for, just as this lady has to accept that what she signed up for involved the need for her partners consent at later stages in the process. Changing the rules half way down the line is wrong. Just as wrong as it would have been if, in fact, the law was that he did NOT have to consent after fertilisation, and then he went to court to try to get that changed.

I fundamentally disagree that the man has less at stake here. He's being asked to allow a child of his to be created, but not be a father to it. Now maybe some of you guys would find that no big deal but I have to say I wouldn't. If I had a child I wouldn't be ready to think to myself, oh well, it was just sperm. This is even leaving aside the fact that he would have to pay to support the child, thereby, who knows, making him less able to support other children he might weant to have with a future partner.

Against that we have the fact that this is her last chance to have a child which is genetically hers, which, sure, is a tough break, but I don't think many people really see the continuation of a genetic line as the number one reason for having a child, as opposed to wanting the pleasures and challenges of raising a child to adulthood.

I find the implied devaluation of fatherhood in all this interesting.