Female. male or embryo rights?

SubJeff on 8/3/2006 at 08:42

Wow. Just wow. Stronts, you have reached new heights of tardery itt. Because of that thread, and the fact that you weren't frothing, you were given the time of day.

But this?

This is some schoolyard crap if ever I saw it. The fact is you harped on and on about some misguided belief that a woman has more rights regarding embryos based soley on the fact that without technology embryos gestate within women (and other rubbish). You've clung to that all along whilst everyone has been telling you that all laws pertaining to womens choices re:embryos exist only because interference with the embryo requires interference with the womans body. And clearly this is not the case here.

No-one has argued against the other 2 points you sited and yet now you are clinging to those as some sort of get-out. I agree that the law is inqdequate insofar as there was and is little clarity for the future. I don't agree that her right to a family should overrides his consent though.

Bugs on 8/3/2006 at 17:19

I think they called this one correctly. Why should he be forced into being a father? Why should the woman have more rights?

Put another way, if she WAS able to still conceive (this is hypothetical) with her own eggs and another man's sperm, yet still wanted to have her ex's embryos implanted without his consent, what would you think? Probably that she's a bit weird, and she should just go out and use some other sperm.

The fact that this is her last chance is of no consequence. Sorry, it may seem harsh, but it's tough sh1t. Sorry, she was ill and lost her ability to reproduce. Without medical intervention she wouldn't be able to get pregnant anyway. Just 'cos it seems morally wrong to you, it has nothing to do with the legal case...

TheivingME on 8/3/2006 at 21:24

(Sorry about no posts in eons)

Strontuim seems to be championing the embryo here. I think this can kind of be traced to an abortion argument, when the child is actually 'alive' the abortion can not happen. I think the Courts were right on this one for 3 main reasons

1: Who wants a child with someone they don't love
2: (being British I have access to the paper reports) I quote 'Even if I did not have to pay maintenance I still would not want the child' This shows the man is not bothered about the responsibility and the money he would have to pay. He just does not want to have a child with someone he does not love.
3: The child would immediately born with no male role model. After studying a module in psychology, we are shown this can have incredibly serious consequences on a child. Which also links to one of her quotes

'give me what I want'....Seriously, what the F*** is that? Its not what you want darling, its what's best for the baby, not you, and even if birth was the best for the baby, I wouldn't want a mum with the attitude of not even planning the situation the baby will be born into.

Myoldnamebroke on 8/3/2006 at 21:35

What happens if the child has no father figure but hasn't done a module of pyschology?

Ulukai on 8/3/2006 at 21:50

It will turn into the reincarnation of Rod Hull.

SD on 8/3/2006 at 21:52

Quote Posted by TheivingME

Strontuim seems to be championing the embryo here. I think this can kind of be traced to an abortion argument

Er, no, and I don't know where you get that idea from at all. I'm championing the mother, not the embryo, because it's a personal belief of mine that the mother, as the bearer and giver of life, should be given the balance of power where the mother and father are in conflict, and all else is neutral.

I appreciate you might have been thrown a little by the non sequitur that is people subjecting a personal belief of mine (that is almost akin to a religious belief) to logical criticism, but in NO way at all am I pro the "rights" of the embryo. It's frozen cells, it has no rights, and if you were paying attention to the recent abortion thread, you'd know why your original assertion is incorrect.

Now returning to scheduled programming o/

[exit SD stage left]

Dia on 8/3/2006 at 21:57

I seriously doubt she's planned anything; it sounds as though her biological clock started going off and she reacted by wanting a baby - by the only means she has available to become pregnant. She sounds driven. Plain & simple. I'm not offering any excuses for her, mind you. I think she should have thought this whole thing through before she agreed to having her fertilized eggs frozen instead of unfertilized eggs. Seriously, though, how many people think that far ahead without idealizing the relationship? You always want to believe it'll last forever.

SubJeff on 8/3/2006 at 22:00

No, she got cancer, had her eggs fertilised and stored for future use, considered using donor sperm, didn't, had her ovaries removed, went through 2 court cases and is now planning another.

She can't have planned a daaaamn thing. Impulse, all of it.

:rolleyes:

Deep Qantas on 9/3/2006 at 00:16

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. It should not make one iota of difference whather he shoots his load inside her or a pyrex beaker.

So if the woman suddenly gets a bright idea and wants one hundred kids (or however many embryos there are around) instead of just one the man has no say against this?

Grr-reat.

Shadowcat on 9/3/2006 at 00:36

Quote Posted by TheivingME

'give me what I want'....Seriously, what the F*** is that?

Quite. Not sure of the context of that quote, but even so.

Quote:

Its not what you want darling, its what's best for the baby, not you, and even if birth was the best for the baby

Well no birth of anyone, ever, is "best for the baby". Intentionally having children is a purely selfish act. Not that people like to think of it that way (for obvious reasons), but it's still true.