A sad story what are your views?

[fishnchips]

The woman must be devastated as this is her only chance to have her own child. However, it is good to know that many of you do stand up for the man's right in this case. Tremendous efforts were spent to protect women's right to choose, protect the women, women' movement, Child support....etc. But man might be the victim of manipulation, men's right neglected, the right for men to choose were ignored.... It is good to see some people actually suggest to give the men equal right to choose.

 

[Kim]

I'm not trying to be a feminist here, but I think whether it's an embryo in a petre dish, both the male and female "donors" should know there is a potential for their "contributions" to become a viable human?? I realize this is not always the case in the heat of passion, but holy guacamole - if the intention is to create a potentially viable freezable embryo, there is obviously some forethought involved??

Yes - obviously there was forethought. However presumably that forethought was arrived at while there was an 'intention' to be together. After they seperated (and we don't know why or how that happened) surely whatever the original intention becomes voided in the light of the new situation. Suppose that it happened the other way around - the man had prostate cancer so couldn't have more kids himself but found a third party to act as a surrogate and demanded some of the embryo's - wouldn't the woman have the right to refuse to allow her eggs to be used?
It IS sad - and as she was treated for cancer she probably was made sterile in the process so has no other chance of her own kids. However we don't know the whole story - how they treated each other, how they broke up etc - so unless you want to totally remove the rights of the man - he has to be able to say no (just as she does)

 

[alcina]

snowbear hits upon a salient point in her post.

Yes - obviously there was forethought. However presumably that forethought was arrived at while there was an 'intention' to be together. kim

It might be worth considering that the frozen embryo be considered the same as an in utero embryo...just because they break up and he changes his mind doesn't mean the embryo gets aborted. The same intent was there in either case. Just food for thought...

 

[TX101]

Again, if he did not want to be a father, why did he "donate" the sperm in the first place??Didn't he willingly contribute the sperm, knowing it would be used to fertilize the egg(s) that would potentially become a child?

I'm not trying to be a feminist here, but I think whether it's an embryo in a petre dish, both the male and female "donors" should know there is a potential for their "contributions" to become a viable human?? I realize this is not always the case in the heat of passion, but holy guacamole - if the intention is to create a potentially viable freezable embryo, there is obviously some forethought involved??

I'm sure they both knew the full gravity of the situation when they donated.

I'm making a few assumptions here.. but It sounds like it went something like this: The woman found out she had cancer and that the radiation treatment would kill all her eggs so it would be impossible for her to concieve after treatment. The couple didn't want a baby at that point (for whatever reason) and they couldn't wait 9+ months to start the treatment while she had one. So they froze some embryos so that if at a later stage they wanted to have children, they could.

The donation gives them options later. They can chose to destroy the samples or have them implanted at a later stage - an option they wouldn't have had if the technology wasn't available.

I don't agree that just because sperm and an egg have left their body, they have to go through with having a child - hell if that was the case, I'd have a million kids by now

Also note that a bunch of cells in a dish dosen't equal life. There's a debate around when it does equal life and I think the consensus is around 22-24 weeks (the point at which you are allowed to have an abortion - at least in the UK). So arguing about the 'rights of the child' makes as much sense as me arguing about the rights of my toenail clippings.

 

[TX101]

snowbear hits upon a salient point in her post.



It might be worth considering that the frozen embryo be considered the same as an in utero embryo...just because they break up and he changes his mind doesn't mean the embryo gets aborted. The same intent was there in either case. Just food for thought...

I don't agree the same intent was there.

What if neither of them wanted children at that point? If the intent was to have children at that point in time, then they could take samples from both of them and have a 3rd person carry the baby to term. But they chose to freeze the embryo - which means they want to be able to make the choice at a later stage - not be forced into parenthood because the woman has cancer.

 

[lostinspace]

If your so full of LOVE then adopt.
Me personally I have 2 beautiful boys, I'm Pro Choice and Agnostic.

oh, how easy to say adopt when you have your own children.
unless you go through the pain of infertility you will NEVER know the pain of loss.
you can empathise all you want but platitudes are meaningless if you have not been through it yourself.

back to the original posting: most IVF clinics these days require a consent form listing out the implications of when where why you keep or destroy the embryos.

 

[Kim]

...just because they break up and he changes his mind doesn't mean the embryo gets aborted.

Don't you possibly mean THEY change their mind? Like I said - WE don't know the full facts of the breakup. I actually believe that in the case of most breakups all such embryo's should be terminated.
The difference between a natural 'in utero' embryo (i.e. someone is actually pregnant) and a frozen embryo (man made through scientific capability) is for me very clear. One happens naturally (God made) - the other doesn't (man made).
I don't believe the two situations are truly comparable. I do think that everyone deserves a choice. The question becomes where does 'one' begin? I don't believe there can be any conscious life in a frozen, disconnected petri dish.

 

[wapyaly]

This is so difficult isn't it and I agree that the rights of the father's are equal to that of the mother's, but if the rights of the father descriminate against the woman to the point where she will never carry and give birth to her child, which she has equal rights too, (don't forget the embryo, foetus, baby or whatever you want to call it has already been concieved) I understand the fathers perspective that a, he does not want a child with the woman anymore, b, he does not want to pay child support, c, he does not want this child. But at what point should he beable to withdraw his consent, the child has already been concieved, and now because the father withdraws his consent the embryo's have to be destroyed. I still say that those embryo's have a right to life and I would still find in favour of the mother, because the father is making desicions for himself and not for the interests of the dchild.

 

[Kim]

but if the rights of the father descriminate against the woman to the point where she will never carry and give birth to her child, which she has equal rights too,

I'm sorry - they don't. It is not because of the father that the woman can't conceive any more - it's because of HER medical condition (unless you're trying to say that he caused her cancer). He is only saying that he doesn't want her to carry HIS child.

 

[wapyaly]

He is only saying that he doesn't want her to carry HIS child.[/QUOTE]
But she has rights to the embryos in equal measure to him. he can go on to have other children she cannot. by ruling against the mother the judge has removed any chance of her giving birth to her own biological child, which already exists.