Female. male or embryo rights? - by SubJeff
Myoldnamebroke on 7/3/2006 at 17:58
Quote:
A mother's rights should be paramount in all aspects of the law, otherwise we get clusterfucks like this
The law was already clear, so a law that clearly stated 'give the mother her embryos, dummy' wouldn't stop the mess of the court case. So, it seems like it's only a mess because you believe the mother's rights to be paramount.
In which case, you want the mother's rights to be paramount else the mother's rights won't be paramount?
Was the consent given by the man 'I consent to having this embryo created, in order to provide a method by which we may have children in the future if we want to', because then he has not yet consented. There's a distinction between 'consenting to having a child' and 'consenting to having your sperm used in order to give you a method by which you can later have a child if you consent to that'.
Also, on what grounds should the law treat unimplanted embryos as solely the property of the mother? As something with an equal stake for both partners it seems rational to treat it as a joint ownership. Why is it more hers than his, given it's 50% DNA each?
Sap'em on 7/3/2006 at 18:18
I say we implement it here.:ebil:
Navyhacker006 on 7/3/2006 at 18:22
This was the first thing I thought of when I read the OP:
"Oh, yeah. Your dad fertilised my egg when I lost my ovaries, and we later broke up* and I took him to court over whether or not I could have you"
That said, it seems really mean to both the guy and the kid; kid never knows his biological father, but does know that his dad didn't want him in a very final way. The dad has to live with the knowledge that he has a kid - and, look at it coldly all you want, but that has to affect him strongly - whom he will probably never know in any meaningful way, with a woman he no longer cares for.
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
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.
Quote Posted by Myoldnamebroke
Also, on what grounds should the law treat unimplanted embryos as solely the property of the mother? As something with an equal stake for both partners it seems rational to treat it as a joint ownership. Why is it more hers than his, given it's 50% DNA each?
There's something interesting in those two quotes, but I can't figure it out for the life of me.
*(were the circumstances explained anywhere? All I see is Strontium name-calling the guy)
dh124289 on 7/3/2006 at 18:28
I can understand the mother's desire to want a child of her own, but the issue of consent must take priority.
As previously stated a woman can consent to sex then change her mind during intercourse. If the man did not take heed of her withdrawl of consent then he would be guilty of rape.
The man may have consented at the time of embryo fertilisation but he no longer consents. Why should the woman be able to overule his withdrawl of consent?
Turn the tables. If the man in this case by some miracle changed his mind and she became pregnant using the frozen embryos, the woman would have the right to abort the pregnancy WITHOUT his consent. The fact that she clearly wouldn't do that doesn't matter, it's the fact that she COULD which counts.
My only other concern with this case is that it would appear the woman wanted to have some of her eggs fertilised by anonymous donors presumably as insurance against the circumstances she now finds herself in, but he persuaded her to ONLY use his sperm, no doubt assuring her that he wouldn't stab her in the back the way he has. Too bad the courts can't take things like that into account tho...
Uncia on 7/3/2006 at 18:32
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
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.
Why?<p>
SD on 7/3/2006 at 19:13
Quote Posted by Uncia
Why?
Why not?
I'd argue that the embryo ought to be treated as if it were already implanted in the mother, whether it is or isn't.
Quote Posted by Myoldnamebroke
The law was already clear
Yeah, and it contradicts other laws which emphasise a woman's right to choose whether she proceeds with a pregnancy or not (did we not have an abortion debate like 5 minutes ago?)
All I'm suggesting anyway is a clarification of the law by which a man donating sperm waives all rights to what happens to the resulting embryo. Like I said, if he was an anonymous donor, he'd have no say - why should he have any say here? Again, it's a legal contradiction that makes no sense.
Quote:
As something with an equal stake for both partners it seems rational to treat it as a joint ownership. Why is it more hers than his, given it's 50% DNA each?
If the fertilisation had occurred inside her, it would be considered 100% hers. Because it occurred in a jar, it's 50/50 and needs both parents consent. Seems pretty dumb to me to distinguish between the two situations like that.
In any case, I don't agree that there's an equal stake in the embryo. There's a little thing called mitochondrial DNA which passes down the maternal line, meaning that a child always contains more DNA from the mother than the father. Even if we're just talking raw biological mass, then as an egg is much bigger than a spermatazoon, and she's contributed more that way.
But I'm nitpicking there ;).
My over-riding concern is that, in this specific case, the mother has far more to lose by the pregnancy not being allowed to proceed, than the father has to gain.
Quote Posted by Navyhacker006
were the circumstances explained anywhere? All I see is Strontium name-calling the guy
Quote Posted by dh124289
My only other concern with this case is that it would appear the woman wanted to have some of her eggs fertilised by anonymous donors presumably as insurance against the circumstances she now finds herself in, but he persuaded her to ONLY use his sperm, no doubt assuring her that he wouldn't stab her in the back the way he has
There's your circumstances. She suggested an anonymous donor, he suggested he would be fine - only to brutally pull the rug from under her like this. Again, why we need a change in the law, to prevent people reneging on their agreements like this.
Gingerbread Man on 7/3/2006 at 19:27
Am I going to merge this thread with the other one? Tune in later to find out.
Turtle on 7/3/2006 at 20:10
Quote:
I'd argue that the embryo ought to be treated as if it were already implanted in the mother, whether it is or isn't.
Why didn't they put the embryo on the stand and consider its testimony?
That seems like the only fair way to do it, huh?
mopgoblin on 7/3/2006 at 20:20
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
I'd argue that the embryo ought to be treated as if it were already implanted in the mother, whether it is or isn't.
Why? There doesn't seem to be any sort of reasoning in your argument at all.
Quote:
Yeah, and it contradicts other laws which emphasise a woman's right to choose whether she proceeds with a pregnancy or not (did we not have an abortion debate like 5 minutes ago?)
Those laws are based on the embryo/foetus being inside the woman's body. That's not what this is about, so there's no conflict.
Quote:
All I'm suggesting anyway is a clarification of the law by which a man donating sperm waives all rights to what happens to the resulting embryo Like I said, if he was an anonymous donor, he'd have no say - why should he have any say here? Again, it's a legal contradiction that makes no sense.
He's not donating sperm any more than she's donating eggs. Hell, the embryos could even have ended up being implanted in a surrogate mother. Surely you don't think the egg donor should have exclusive control over the embryo/foetus until birth in that case?
Quote:
If the fertilisation had occurred inside her, it would be considered 100% hers. Because it occurred in a jar, it's 50/50 and needs both parents consent. Seems pretty dumb to me to distinguish between the two situations like that.
No, it's always considered both hers and the father's. The reason she can decide to abort it when it's growing inside her body is that it's growing inside her body. That's obviously distinct from a bunch of embryos sitting in a freezer.
Quote:
In any case, I don't agree that there's an equal stake in the embryo.
Clearly there is. Trying to decide ownership or contribution based on amount of genetic material or mass is bloody stupid, because without both the sperm and the egg it's not an embryo and can't develop into a child.
Navyhacker006 on 7/3/2006 at 20:27
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
There's your circumstances.
No, not really. Aside from the fact that he posted after I did, and did exactly what I said you were doing (that is, name-calling the guy. I don't see any instance of someone saying "this evil woman" or "selfish bitch", while I see lots of "conceited man" and "backstabber".*), we really don't know anything about the cause of the break-up - something I think ought to be at least looked at.
Was he cheating? Was she? Natural move apart? In the second and third cases, I can completely understand the guy's reluctance. In the first, I can't. But there are lots of other ways to break up, all of which color the situation one way or the other.
*feel free to correct me, I may have missed something.
