What offence would be committed if a man were to have an embryo implanted in his body without consent?

Interesting. I can't think of a single statutory offense that specifically forbids implanting an embryo in a persons body...man or woman. In states where it's against the law to terminate a pregnancy except to save the life of the 'mother' the state could argue that the gentleman involved must carry the fetus to term. Would a court in states where such a law is in place rule for the state or make an exception? Who knows! It's possible to argue for termination on the grounds of the 13th Amendment. 'Involuntary servitude' except for punishment for a crime is illegal in this country. Forcing a person, man or woman to go full term against their will as a 'service' to the state without compensation may stretch the 13th Amendment to it's limit, but I'd say it's a valid argument.

In my opinion any law that falls outside of Roe vs. Wade is not particularly constitutional. Most of these state laws, except for reasonable laws concerning time, place and manner are laws that cater to some religious concerns...a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. Someone should bring that up in the retarded states that force women, and in this 'case' men to deliver unwanted children.

Conclusion: As there is no existing case law concerning an event like this a judge would have to make a determination as to whether or not the embryo could be removed. The state would make its case, the man's legal team would make theirs. As far as the person or persons who implanted the embryo is concerned some form of 'assault' charge could be made to stick, and of course there would be a civil suit against the accused.

Good question. I see a novel, a movie and even action figures here!

As such a situation is currently impossible, there are no specific laws to cover such a situation.

The only charge that would really apply would be assault, as bodily harm would have to be inflicted in order to implant anything.

However, termination laws wouldn't apply for the simple fact that science had not yet reached the point wherein a male human can be made pregnant. Termination would be unnecessary. In order to carry a child to term, hypothetically, a male would, at a minimum, have to undergo hormone replacement therapy for the duration of the pregnancy... otherwise, the embryo would simply be absorbed by his body and never develop any further. The man would literally have to do absolutely nothing, and the pregnancy would self-abort 100% of the time.

Interesting. Women can have inter-abdominal ectopic pregnancies where the fetus develops outside the female sexual apparatus. The fetus can latch onto something else to get a blood supply. Chances are extremely high that both the fetus and the mother will die. The link at the bottom shows one that didn't.

An argument might be made for attempted murder as the mortality in women is so high. It would be so much higher in a man. Even if the fetus were to survive, without major surgical intervention the man dies. With intervention, there's the chance of massive hemorrhaging and/or organ loss depending on where the placenta attached.

Also, I'd use the language in laws about abortion in cases of life of the mother. According to Wikipedia, 97% of countries allow abortion to save the live of the mother. For the US, I'd guess that Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld and the cited cases in it might come into play. "By providing dissimilar treatment for men and women who are thus similarly situated, the challenged section violates the Equal Protection Clause."

I'm neither a lawyer nor a doctor, but I've written speculative papers before.

I believe that everyone has the right to give or refuse consent and if, as in this case, a child is unable to (or a mentally incapacitated adult) then the procedure should not go ahead. Whilst I deeply sympathise with the need for research to be done, our rights as human beings should not be ignored. This is just another step towards dictatorship.