This is truly a horrible situation to be in for both parties...
fact:
eggs & sperm put to one side for future use (in a relationship)
Relationship dies & the '1st party' due to an unfortunate circumstance cannot conceive child calls upon the eggs & sperm.
'2nd party' in broken relationship has no viable interest in parenting outside the relationship & thereby exercises the right NOT to be a parent.
Now consider this....
What would we be saying if the 1st party was the male wishing to father a child but unable to do so due to a medical complication & demanding the female to bear his child?
I know this is just a twist on the what's making the news right now but I have to say the courts made the correct decision.
Nobody has a right to become a parent.
Nobody should be taken to court & forced to bear a child... or in fact terminate a child!
We will not know the true reasoning behind this womans ex partner's thinking...
I for one thank god we still live in a 'free' country.
If the state starts to dictate one 'rights' to bear children then we mustexpect them to dictate rights on who cannot bear children!
It's a double edged sword... keep it sheathed!
The more I think about this the more I come closer to a conclusion.
The embryos were frozen for THEIR future use. They are no longer a couple and hence THEY have no future.
I feel for the woman I really do, but they both still have the option to raise a family. OK genetically the children she may bear or adopt will not be hers. But from what I can gather, the option of attempting to freeze embryos until a later date just in case they decided the time was right for them to start a family was just one of many options they discussed. There was always the chance that it wouldn't work and that they would have to fall back on one of the other options.
This, in my eyes, was not her last chance to have her child, this was her last chance to have THEIR child. So I'm tending towards agreeing with the courts decision. He's not stopping her from having a child, he's stopping her from having THEIR child.
Heart-wrenching stuff! And the law often seems harsh. Personally I can't understand a bloke being that concerned about what happens to his sperm. I would have liked to see a reasonable compromise between the two parties: he could have allowed her to proceed with the embryos, and she could have allowed him to renounce any obligations he might have had as a father.
This really is a very emotive issue and a truly heartbreaking story and I sit on the fence as i can really appreciate both sides situations.
A truth. No one has a given right to have their own biological child. When I was told this I thought my heart would break.
I was determined, obsessed even, my whole life focussed on what I wanted and I thought I should be able to have. It took over our lives.
But sadly it is true. We were lucky. Many others are not so.
For the woman though. The physical and emotional streses of preparing your body for creating eggs for collection, by general anaesthetic or heavy sedation enduring drugs, moods, physical discomforts, injections, scans, clinic trips, the highs and lows of how many eggs, what grade, do they fertilise, how many cells by day 2. I could go on. My point? To get this far to create a healthy embryo worthy of freezing is a mammouth acheivement especially if you know this egg collection is your only chance before cancer treatment starts. I feel saddened for this poor woman to have her chance taken away. Adopting is not the same as having your own child with your genes.
On the man's side, he seems to me rather unkind to think his reasons are more overiding than hers for letting her use their embryos considering what she has been through. He will have witnessed the hardship of treatment to create those embryos. However I can fully appreciate it is his choice to whether to have his biological child in this world. He has a life too.
On the child's side. Nobody has yet mentioned this. The welfare of the resulting child. There could be many resulting issues of the child having severe emotional problems having or not having a relationship with his or her natural father.
Very sad. But the future of the child untimately should carry more weight than either of the adults needs.
pink x
I wholeheartedly believe that the wrong decision was made. She has now been denied the right to have her own child. Yes she can adopt - but her right to grow that child and feel it kick inside her - actually be a part of her - has been denied. Whatever else it comes down to - women were made to have children - I fundamentaly believe that that is one of (not the only) but main things we are here for. To be denied that right when the possibility is right there in front of her surely is a breach of her human rights.
I can only guess at the torment she is going through right now knowing that it was so close then snatched away. Had she known this was going to happen - she probabaly wouldn't have gone ahead with her treatment or would maybe instead have chosen to have her eggs frozen instead of embryo's. That guy must have serious issues to have been capable of causing such pain.
I hope karma means he will get his one day.
*Her*
I sort of scan read this so I may have missed it, but only 1 person has replied in relation to the future happyness/welfare/emotional/phsycological state of the child.
How on earth do you expect a child to cope with this in the future when its grown up, knowing the stresses and strains its put on both parents. The child will grow up knowing that his father did not want him/her, I'm sorry but I could never put a child through this, its welfare should come way and above the parents.
how would i decide..... umm let someone else decide..
its a no win situation whoever is decided for. so in the end someone loses out.
if i had to decide:
"thinking about it logically and lawfully:
since a person can not be classed as property
and that an embryo is just a very young person. neither should really have any right to say whether it lives or dies."
so i say let nature deicde.
if it successfully reaches maturity, then when the child is old enough the details should be given to them. and then let them decide what they want to do with taht information.
if against logic you think an embryo is classed as property. i say one thing i thought teh slave trade died out years ago and was banned.
Now these comments may offend some so choose as you wish if you want to shout and bawl thats fine its just my opinion after all. - I shout back
matt
on anotehr note since my perception on IVF being vetted properly:
in that couples at risk of breaking up or broke up afetr teh treatment happened i always thought that they both gave up their "title" on the beforementioned embryo and it reverted to the treatment practicioner as to who it was inpregnated into. (not the 2 parties concerned)
since in theory both broke the contract with teh IVF provider and as such gave up all claim to teh before mentioned embryos.
if that were the case then it would be up to a court to decide if they were destroyed or to their final use: i.e. medical science.
again thsi argument could be considered provocative and as such is a stated opinion of mine alone.
matt
my view is that the court made the right decision
its easy to sit from the comfort of my keyboard, and with no children in my life to say that, but i personally feel had the court ruled in her favour, it would reduce the role of a man in the decision and life of a child, it would mean all a man is required to do, is be a donor, the ramifications of this would be massive - what if the law then had a loophole to suggest a man could avoid all responsibility (i.e. upbringing, CSA etc) by saying that this particular judgement meant that the man had no involvement, no influence, no involvement in decisions?
they made the decision as a partnership, and they , for whatever reason, then no longer became a couple
its very very harsh for all concerned, but its also the reality of their situation
and with regards to the point of her bringing the child up alone, as someone who was raised (i nearly put grown up, that clearly hasnt happened) within a single parent family, i think anyone who says a child is made to suffer because they have not been part of a two parent family, are, in my opinion, misguided, yes, in an ideal world two parents would be involved, but there is no, and shouldnt be, any stigma attached to anyone who is a single parent, male or female
keeps repeating, i will not enter this thread again, i will not enter this thread again.....
To have a child is not a 'right' it is a gift.
To have scientific help made available to overcome nature's barriers is also a gift, not a 'right'.
She was offered choices for a chance in the future to receive a ‘gift’ – she made a choice to select the sperm of her then partner (and only his sperm) for ‘them’ to have a baby ‘together’.
The consequences of that choice may be greatly more emotionally fraught than ticking the wrong dinner service pattern in a wedding catalogue, but it was a choice she made never the less.
He hasn’t taken away any of her ‘rights’. For a period of time he increased her chances of receiving a ‘gift’ in the future by allowing his sperm to be used.
If he had refused to do so and her eggs had been frozen unfertilised, would we hold him accountable now for denying her ‘rights’ if the eggs now all proved to be damaged by the freezing process? Or would it be a sad consequence of the choice she made?
We have no 'right' to demand a 'gift'.
been re reading the thread and been thinking about this one even while away form the site.
i think it is very unfair to say to him that just cuse she said she will renounce him of all responsibility as a father if he lets her use the eggs is so wrong/stupid. we argue and moan that men should be more informed and involved in childrens lifes yet when i guy stands up and says he cannot agree to renouncing his rights some say hes being selfish?? its not just about financial responsibility. he has said he can not walk away emotionally from a child.
how would any child feel if the courts had said yes to her? i know many are bought into this world not wanted by both parents, but thats doesnt mean its ok.
i have always felt for guys who have found themselves in a situation where by their partner decides to have a termiation and they may not want that. but no one could force her to carry on, and im not saying anyone should.
if we start getting into the whole medical advances should never have allowed this to happen in the first place, well should we not have moved forward with the knowledge to transplant organs? etc etc
on reflection of this thread i do now think the right desision was made.
the possibility of having a child for her was always a gift of science, as was the scientific knowledge that has allowed her to fight the cancer that means she is now here to even find herself in this situation.
xxxx fem xx
Thank you for your wonderful insights into this tragic circumstance. I think on reflection and reading the posts. I still believe the courts made the correct decision. Though thank god i wasnt anything to do with the process. As for the man at the center of all this. I despised him at the start. Though after thinking, and reading the posts. Maybe i'll give him the benefit of the doubt and understand where he is coming from a little more. Some diamond thinking going on.
:lol: :lol: :twisted: 
