Zenister 0 #26 March 8, 2006 QuoteQuoteIf there is a good outcome from this, it might be that women and men will know to be more careful about what they agree to _before_ they agree to such fertility procedures. And I'm of the opinion that once agreed, the agreement should be irrevocable if even one wants the embryo nurtured and brought to term--as long as it's not required that an unwilling woman be required to supply the womb. this is as ridiculous a position as those who think the father should have a say in a natural pregnancy.. SHE IS NOT PREGNANT.. implanting the frozen embryos would be allowing her to be impregnated by a man who does not consent to having a child with this woman.. (one could argue this as rape even, the loss of self determination sexually, biologically) as they exist now, neither party has a greater claim to the embryos, however both have rights in determining their possible use... at this point his 'donation' is still equally in his control as it is in hers. The law should do NOTHING that removes either parties control influence without the others full consent.. if that means Solomon's rule is applied due to their disagreement so be it... the difference in a natural pregnancy is the sperm is 'given' to the woman in the act of sex.. the male cedes control and influence completely (like it or not, its a biological fact) to the female until (the possible) birth... SHE has the sole right to determine what, when and how her body may be used by the embryo/fetus (and eventual baby, if she choses to allow it)____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #27 March 8, 2006 But he did consent and she relied on that consent knowing it was her only chance to ever have a child on her own. I'll grant you that in this case, they both knew the rules, but the rules need to change. And yes, I would say the same if he wanted the embryos. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #28 March 8, 2006 I think that these kinds of questions should shurely be thought through and put down on paper before the egg is fertilized. Maybe this situation will be an impetus for people to do that. I do agree that they both created the embryos, but I also believe that he should have the right to say he doesn't want them used by her, for whatever reason. I feel that way only because I feel that it is right. The waters are so murky in a case like this that I think the lines will be drawn based on people's biases. I doubt that there's a way around that. In her case, she's gonna just have to take her lumps, it seems. In the future hopefully others will be a little more thoughtful and answer the questions up front for themselves in the form of legal documentation. linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #29 March 8, 2006 Devil's advocate... One could also argue that all these problems could be resolved if reproduction was left to the way nature intended. Having kids is not an inherent right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #30 March 8, 2006 Morals question to the anti-abortion people out there - There is a fire at this facility, and you have the option of saving these six embryos or a healthy two month old baby. You don't have time to save both. What do you do? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #31 March 8, 2006 The two month old, definitelyMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #32 March 8, 2006 QuoteDevil's advocate... One could also argue that all these problems could be resolved if reproduction was left to the way nature intended. Having kids is not an inherent right. Nature didn't intend us to use birth control, so in the good old days women had scads of babies. It ruined their bodies and most of the babies didn't survive. I'd say that having kids is a biological imperative. The infertility problems many experience today have much to do with delaying pregnancy, not with natural infertility. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #33 March 8, 2006 The problem with this case is that at the time the treatment was started, neither party anticipated the breakdown of their relationship. For some strange reason, this situation wasn't anticipated by the IVF Clinic either. Because of this, the woman reduced her options to one; having children with her then fiance as the father, BUT, with the father having to give consent to implantation. In effect, this whole sorry mess has come about due to a failing of the law which did not link irrevocable consent to the physical point where all options were removed. Had the law followed a more "natural" course, then irrevocable consent should have been given at the time the sperm donation was made. The best we can hope for is that the law will be amended to take account of this. Mike. PS: Personally, I think that the man, by denying his former fiancee her sole chance to have children, shows himself to be an Utter-Wanker! But then... We already know that! Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #34 March 8, 2006 QuoteThe infertility problems many experience today have much to do with delaying pregnancy, not with natural infertility. I understand that...though I wasn't talking about birth control....almost the opposite. Plus, having less babies really is not such a bad thing when one looks at the world population. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
