Female. male or embryo rights? - by SubJeff
d0om on 7/3/2006 at 12:51
It does seem rather a harsh choice on his part, but he should be allowed to make it.
I wonder what caused them to split up so badly that he is being this nasty towards her?
Surely they could sign a parental responsibility waiver or something if he didn't want any part in their upbringing.
Printer's Devil on 7/3/2006 at 13:30
Which either the ex-wife or her test-tube children would surely try to negate at a later date, in another court. Money, money, money, so fine and lovely...
WingedKagouti on 7/3/2006 at 13:36
Why is it nasty to not allow a woman you don't love (anymore) to be impregnated with your seed and give birth to your kids?
If she was already pregnant (with his child/-ren) then it'd be different.
Vasquez on 7/3/2006 at 13:36
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
IMO once a woman's egg is fertilised, it ought to be 100% up to her what happens to that resulting embryo.
IMO 100% only if the fertilised egg is inside her.
d0om on 7/3/2006 at 13:49
Quote Posted by WingedKagouti
Why is it nasty to not allow a woman you don't love (anymore) to be impregnated with your seed and give birth to your kids?
If she was already pregnant (with his child/-ren) then it'd be different.
Well its nasty as she has had her ovaries removed and it is her last chance at having children.
dvrabel on 7/3/2006 at 14:02
Why did they preserve the embryos rather than the eggs? Had they kept a bunch of eggs then this situation wouldn't have arisen.
SubJeff on 7/3/2006 at 14:22
Tru dat.
I don't think this is nasty d0om. No more nasty than him refusing to give his sperm to any other woman he doesn't want to have children with. You have to consider each aspect as separate and the one that was deemed to be more important was the simple issue of consent. Unfortunately you have to forget the woman's plight since you are seeking to override his consent. He has said he doesn't consider this a victory so it seems that he isn't letting malice come in to it. Even if he was you could always look at it from the other side.
Printer's Devil - yep, pure truth that was. Facts of life.
Uglyhead on 7/3/2006 at 14:30
While certainly the man has rights in this business, it would seem that, having lost her ovaries, the embryos are the woman's last chance at having children that share her genes. This seems like a "preservation of the bloodline" issue.
That, combined with the fact the embryos were fertilized while they were still together(don't divorcees usually get half of one another's stuff, anyway?), makes me think the woman ought to have gotten her way in this case.
If this were a case with frozen embryos and the fellow'd lost his testicles without preserving any sperm, I'd side with him and the surrogate mother.
And yeah, dvrabel, it's too bad they didn't do that, would've simplified things mightily.
Jennie&Tim on 7/3/2006 at 15:41
I think the court made the right choice. I think embryos store better than eggs, which is why it happened this way. I don't think it affects a woman's control of her own body, because this doesn't affect her body. Perhaps women who are losing their ovaries in the future should have some of the eggs fertilized by anonymous donors, so they have a backup?
SubJeff on 7/3/2006 at 15:49
Nice idea, will never work.
Man: Why the hell do you want someone else's sperm? Don't you trust me?
Woman: Why should I use someone else's sperm? Are you saying you don't love me?
