Female. male or embryo rights?

SD on 7/3/2006 at 16:08

Quote Posted by Jennie&Tim

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?

She suggested going with an anonymous donor originally, but her boyfriend of the time agreed to fertilise the eggs instead. Big mistake in hindsight, but then presumably she didn't know he would be such a shit.

It's frankly a nonsense that he should have any more rights than an ordinary sperm donor in this instance, and I would hope that the law would be changed to reflect that element of common sense.

SubJeff on 7/3/2006 at 16:16

But this is a completely different case Stronts. Can you not see that? Sperm donors are anonymous and will never know about, nor have to support, the offspring.

I ask again - what is it about women or eggs that means they have more say than the men?

SD on 7/3/2006 at 16:27

Quote Posted by Subjective Effect

But this is a completely different case Stronts. Can you not see that?

The difference is marginal.

Quote:

Sperm donors are anonymous and will never know about, nor have to support, the offspring.

He's been told he won't have to support the offspring financially. Oh, and sperm donors might be anonymous now, but that's about to change and you know it.

If the law says (and I believe it does) that consent must be given from both partners before an embryo can be implanted in a woman and the pregnancy resumed, then the law is an ass and needs to be changed. Once a man gives his permission for sperm to be used there should be no going back. So long as his sperm has been used to fertilise an egg, then it should be read that his sperm no longer exists as an independent entity, and that his right to withold consent has expired.

Like I say - how can you undonate your sperm when it's already been used to fertilise an egg? What next - people demanding their organs back after they've already been transplanted?

Quote:

I ask again - what is it about women or eggs that means they have more say than the men?

Each night this man produces enough sperm to fertilise every woman on Earth. This woman has no eggs. Whose "half" of the embryonic life holds more value? It's a no-brainer.

TenTailedCat on 7/3/2006 at 16:37

Regardless of some little bit of paper which says he's not responsible that will still be his child.
If he's not comfortable with that then he has every right to say no.

That's my opinion anyway.

SubJeff on 7/3/2006 at 16:47

But sperm donors have always expected to be anonymous and were told that anonymity would be preserved at the time. That the law is changing to mess things up means nothing (except for those who are donating knowing that the change is coming).

And the fact of that change is, amusingly, why this assurance that he won't have to provide financial support is total ass. how I get screwed by retrospective change?

The reason this is different from pregnancy and organ donation is that in both of those cases recall of tissue/genetic material requires interferance with someone elses body.

The only reason a woman should ever have more say than a man over the production of a child is in that exact case - when changing the situation will affect her body. That situation is pregnancy and I don't see it as fair that a woman should have any more say in any other situation.

It doesn't matter that the man produces lots of sperm at the moment. Why should that mean that his opinion on the matter holds any less weight? That's a very odd and messed up view right there. If he was infertile right now would his opinion suddenly be more important?

Dia on 7/3/2006 at 17:06

Even though I sympathize with the woman only because this is her last chance to bear a child of her own I have to agree that she shouldn't have more authority than the sperm donor. I'd side with her if the situation was reversed and it was her ex wanting to have that embryo implanted in a surrogate mother. As was said previously, this is something they should have thought about before they did it.

Quote:

I ask again - what is it about women or eggs that means they have more say than the men?

She should have more authority only if the egg was impregnated within her body. Which, obviously, it wasn't.

I could just shake her til her teeth rattled for not having an unfertilized egg frozen in the first place!

Turtle on 7/3/2006 at 17:19

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

So long as his sperm has been used to fertilise an egg, then it should be read that his sperm no longer exists as an independent entity, and that his right to withold consent has expired.

That works both ways, you know.

Vasquez on 7/3/2006 at 17:20

Quote Posted by Uglyhead

the embryos are the woman's last chance at having children that share her genes.

I find it strange that a woman's right to have a child should by default override other peoples' rights.
It's a sad situation, but no one should be forced to be a parent (even if it's only biological) against their will. Like women, men must also have the choice.

Ulukai on 7/3/2006 at 17:28

Because the embryos were stored, if the man and woman had remained together they would always have had a choice about whether to have children together, or not.

And a wise decision to store the embryos if they suspected circumstances would arise that would lead her to become infertile, even if they didn't want kids at the time.

Then, they split up and the man suddenly has no choice about whether he has a kid? That's wrong and evil. The court came to the right decision, clear as day.

SD on 7/3/2006 at 17:48

Quote Posted by Vasquez

It's a sad situation, but no one should be forced to be a parent (even if it's only biological) against their will. Like women, men must also have the choice.

He had the choice originally, and he said yes. So far as I am concerned, that should be the end of the story.

Quote Posted by Ulukai

Then, they split up and the man suddenly has no choice about whether he has a kid? That's wrong and evil.

Firstly, he wouldn't be having the kid - she would.

Secondly, what really is wrong and evil is that he has the power to decide whether she can have children or not, when he's already once consented to fertilise her eggs.

I blame the law for this mess. It ought to treat a frozen embryo in a glass jar as entirely the property of the mother, as it would treat an embryo within the mother herself. I don't buy this "only her property if it's implanted in her" argument at all.

I'm not pretending it's an easy case to deal with, and ultimately it's her fault for choosing to have children with this selfish, conceited man rather than a regular sperm donor, but the law ought to be changed. A mother's rights should be paramount in all aspects of the law, otherwise we get clusterfucks like this.