I am in an utter quandry about this :-
I know that in my head i believe that the law on this women having the right to use her embryo's fertilzed by an ex parner is being upheld properly. Using consideration from people far more knwledgeable and cleverer than I. Then I must be swayed to agree that their decision is the right one.
However, I am seriously devastated for her and can not imagine the torment this poor woman is going through. I have no sympathy for the man in being so hard as to deny this woman the chance of leaving a living memorial to her life. I just think its so selfish of him. my problem is what/why would this man care so much to deny her?
I have a few sketchy ideas why but anyone want to comment on it i want/need this guy to have a point to redeem himself
Yes this is a very difficult case.......but I assume that Howard Johnson has now decided that he no longer wants to have children with his ex. He has rights as a potential father in the same way that Nathalie Evans does as a mother. I would hope that children are only brought into this world under the consent of both parents (although this may not be the case at times). I can understand his point of view that he no longer wants to have a child with Ms Evans, but also her point of view that she won't be able to concieve in the future without these eggs being used.
I guess what it boils down to is that it is a very big shame that they couldn't come to a mutual understanding over the matter....but things don't alway work out the way we want them to....
This is not difficult. The embryos were created with the consent of both. If the male has has now withdraw consent, it is to late. The lady has the right to have children, with no demands on the male.
The act of denying the mother children sound like the last act of meanness after a break-up.
The court have made a misstake in this case. Independent of both parents opinions the embryos will now die. How old does a human have to be to be protected by the law?
In my opinion the court made the right decision.
She can still have children, she can adopt.
splendid
I think the courts chose correctly....
I do feel for this woman and how she obviously is desperate to have children and go through the whole process including carrying and giving birth...
I think that a lot of women believe its the full experience that makes it complete ....
I also respect the males wishes....
There will always be something digging at him deep down that somewhere he has a son/daughter or even sons/daughters that he has fathered but plays no part in their lives.....
Its a hard choice but I believe the right one was made..
I have to say i also think the court made a mistake! He knew what he was doing when these embryo's were created, the fact that he has changed his mind shouldnt really matter now. If she had gotten pregnany naturally he would not be able to demand a termination just because he got cold feet.
i understand that this situation is alot deeper than simple black and white, BUT it opens a whole can of worms for future cases.
What about a couple that create embryos through donor sperm, will he be able to withdraw consent and they lose thier chance of having children. Could this landmark case even go further in the future and see biological fathers demanding terminations as they no longer consent to the pregnancy?
just to throw a spanner in the works, what if it was him who was infertile and she was refusing to carry the embryo for him?
what if she was already pregenant and they split then could he hav ethe right to demand or refuse her a termination?
maybe he knows something about her that makes him feel he would not want her to be the mother of his children.
maybe they should never have started on the road of offering people and medical advances regarding fertility?
these are not my points of view just an example of a can of worms thought provoking ideas i get when i hear of these cases.
the good news is they have now discovered a way of freezing just the unfertalised egg, so maybe this will not be a issue for future couples.
my mind cannot cope with the questions this topic raises,
i have been bessed with the gift of children naturally, so could never understand how this lady is feeling.
xxxx fem xx
I hated watching this on the news, I felt so so sorry for BOTH of them.
Normally I'm very good at making decisions either for or against but on this occasion I'm actually stuck.
On one hand I feel for the woman as she'll now never carry her own child - but - she can still adopt and give a child love.
I feel for the man who said "I should have the right to choose when I start a family and whom with" he made that decision 5 years ago when those eggs were fertilised but clearly they've split.
My questioning is "is this a case of sour grapes" or is he really really thinking of himself. If he had of allowed the embryo's to be implanted and a baby resulted the baby would still have been loved 100% I am sure by both parents.
I would hated to have been in the courtroom assisting in making that decision.
The horrible thought is that now those little embryo's are going to be destroyed and they were in my eyes the starting chance of viable lives. :cry:
Having been through the whole emotional rollercoaster of the IVF process, I do feel sorry for both people involved, however, I do think all of the courts made the right decision...like fem_4_taboo says, it would have opened a real can of worms if it had gone the other way.
i.e. if the father's new partner was infertile and he demanded the right to implant the embryo's into her against Natalie Evan's wishes.
At least this case will ensure that everyone is fully aware of the law and the possibility of a future break up - so I guess this particular situation will never happen again.
I'm not sure the father was being selfish...they would all have been aware of their legal rights at the outset and I don;t think he would want the emotional burden of knowing there was a child of his out there without his involvement.
I've heard some people say that she was being selfish by dragging him through the courts too - although I think most people in her position would quite rightly have done exactly the same.
Now it's possible, I do think more couples will opt to freeze both unfertilised eggs (which the woman has sole rights to) and embryos (which requires consent of both).
I believe the court made the correct decision. The embryos were created when the couple were in a committed loving relationship and both in complete agreement of the situation. Unfortunately the circumstances changed PRIOR to the embryos being used. Whilst I do feel very sorry for the lady in question, surely it is only fair that both sides have to give their consent for the embryos to be used.
i believe that the court made the right choice.
firstly, it is not the same as her already being pregnat and him expecting her to have a termination, he allowed it to be done for FUTURE use, had the only option to him been for it to happen straight away, then he may not have agreed at all.
so he was not agreeing to make a baby , he was agreeing to have the option of making a baby in the future! rather than being like asking soomeone to have a termination, its like someone agreeing to get you pregnant, then not turning up on the day you are fertile! a whole different situation.
they made an agreement that they would have the embryos frozen for future use, and that either of them could back out at any point.
she went ahead knowing that he ( like her) had the choice to change his mind. you can not agree to something whilst it suits you, ut then expect the rules changed because they dont suit you any more.
the reason the embryos were frozen was so that they had the option of having a child in the future.
had mr johnston been told at the time that he would not be allowed to change his mind, then there is a big chance that he would not have gone ahead with it in the first place, so of course he has the right to change his mind.
i liken it to any man sying to his partner "lets have a child together in the future" and then them taking steps so as to not rule out them being able to do it. no one would then say to a guy walking down the street "oh, you are out of order for changing you mind and not going and impregnating you ex girlfriend" so why should this man be treat differently, just because his ex was gojng to be impregnated in a different way.
all the people who are saying the court was wrong, what about if it had been the other way round, a man forcing a woman to have a child with him because she promised to at an earlier time, i could agree to have a child with my partner and then go about making the right steps ie, coming off the pill etc, but just makeing teps towards making it possible does not take away my right to change my mind at any point up untill it happens. and should anyone ever try to take away that right of a woman to change her mind, i would imagine there would be public uproar, so i feel we should extend that same courtessy to men when they choose to change their mind.
its extremely sad for nathalie, and i have a lot of sympathy for her, but not as much sympathy as i would have for anyone who was forced to become a parent against their will. he does not have a responsibility to have a child with someone just because they have no other options and i would hope that the courts would never take away someones right to choose not to be a parent.
it is not him who has stopped her being a parent, its the illness that she had and no one can be blamed for that.
if people are saying that because he is her only chance, that should mean he has to go ahead, where do we draw the line with that?
should we all have to undergo mandatory blood tests to see if we are suitable kidney donars for people on the transplant list, and if we happen to be their only chance, we are forced to give them?
people may think that is a bit of an extreme reaction, but its only one step further than teling someone they have to give a child to someone because they are the only chance the preson has.
i dont know the man in question, i guess there is a chance that he is doing it to spite her, none of us will ever know the truth, only he will. but for the sake of all of our rights, i would rather he spited her, than she took away his human rights.
this has turned into a right rant on my part ll, sorry to anyone who has read through all of it. its just something that i feel very strongly about.
I honestly don't know what I think. There are some things that I side with her argument and other points where I think he has a valid point too. I am pleased it wasn't me who had to make the decision because I don't think I could fully back either of them unreservedly.
Technology means that this won't be an issue for other couples in the future since unfertilised eggs can now be frozen.
It saddens me that she can't now have a child that is genetically hers as was her wish at the start of it all, but she does have other options open to her through the generosity of women who donate their eggs and through the adoption routes. If she does decide to take one of those routes I just hope the press leave her alone to get on with it in peace and we don't see her being made headline news for it.
excellent well worded post wbb.
i do hope as i said before none of my comments were taken as my my opinion , just aired questions this topic raised.
for all those for whom this is very much hitting home big :therethere:
im also glad i never had to make this desision.
xxx fem xxx
I believe the main issue to be one of consent, and where that no longer existed, the male has the right to decline (imo)
just as a related point, if anyone on here had a request to have a child with their ex, how many would do it?
I do see your point WBB but they could have opted just to freeze her eggs. He gave his consent for the eggs fertilzed with him sperm, too late to change his mind.
when she had the embryos fertilised it was done as embryoes because of problems with freezing just eggs. he did not have the embryos frozen because he agreed to have children there and then, he did it because it was the only way that they could keep the options open.
it all boils down to the fact that HAD they said to him " have this done and then you have no choice in what heppens" and had he gone ahead, then he would have had no right of argument,
but to say to someone " have this done to keep your options open, you can change your mind at ANY TIME ( as they DID tell him)" and then when he does change his mind as he was told he could, to tell him its too late, well that would have been to trick him into it!
i can never see any justification for forcing someone into parent hood, and thats what we would have been doing to him.
had a man tried to force a woman to have a child against her will i would have had the same amount of indignity on her behalf too.
