Woman Loses Frozen Embryos Fight

Post Reply New Topic

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4779876.stm

What are others' opinions on this? In brief, its about a female who suffered from ovarian cancer and she knew she'd be left infertile by the treatment. In view of this, her and her partner decided to have six embryos frozen so that they could have children once her treament was over. They are no longer a couple and he decided he didn't want her to have any of the embryos implanted anymore, they went to court and she lost her appeal to have them. My opinions seems to be mixed. Although it gives people who may be made infertile a chance for kids of their own (hence its good in this sense), I don't like the idea of freezing embryos as I feel like we are playing God in some way and this isn't natural. At the same time though, I really feel for this woman as she has been denied the chance to have a pregnancy and give birth naturally, something she seemed to really want. She'll never have that chance now because of her ex and I think thats mean after it was originally decided before they broke up and she was looking forward to having children.

While I do feel sorry for the poor woman, the European Court of Human Rights made the right decision in the end. If her partner withdrew his consent, it's a pity but to force him to be a father against his will is worse.

Especially considering theres plenty of unwanted, unloved children in the world already just waiting for a stable, financially secure and caring family to take them in. Her options arn't completly put on hold.

while i find it impossible to understand why anyone would want to reproduce, i believe that the issue at the heart of this case was not simply about one person's right to become a parent and the other person's right to not become a parent.

my understanding of it is (and i'm not sure of the facts, so please correct me if i'm wrong) that when this woman had her eggs frozen, she could've had them fertilised by a sperm doner. but, because her partner wanted to be the father of her child, all of her eggs were fertilised by this one person.

when their relationship ended, he changed his mind about wanting to father a child with her. if he had taken the possibility of their relationship ending in to account before agreeing to the commitment, she would've been able to create embryos with a willing doner.

if these facts are correct, my feeling is that the court's decision was wrong. when the man consented for his sperm to be used to create embryos with his partner, he knew that would mean that she would be unable to ever have children with anyone else. if there were any doubts in his mind (and only he would know this), he should not have agreed to the procedure.

if he hadn't been so greedy and over-eager to spread his seed, she would've been free to become a mother by using another person's sperm. i think he should have his testicles removed and put on spikes outside buckingham palace as warning to other men to not do what he has done.

Thats just aweful I feel bad for that woman

bastard with a capital B

As the court pointed out, the argument goes both ways. Should a woman consent to sex or to motherhood, and then she changes her mind... she has a legal obligation to be impregnated and to carry the child to term, then surrender that baby in the delivery room.

Your sympathy for women is touching, but perhaps you forget that men are also human. We are not objects for you to abuse for sex, financial support, or anything else. We, too, can say no.

My sympathies are with Natallie Evans. However it is a very difficult case because if she bears the children from these particular frozen embryos, then Howard Johnston becomes financially responsible for the children. If there were a legal way for Ms. Evans to waive that support so that the children were only her financial responsibility as if they had been conceived with an anonymous donor, then I would definitely say that she should be allowed to bear them, because it represents her only chance to give birth to her biological offspring. Why do all embryos have to be destroyed after they exist for five years? I do not understand the reason for this. They are viable for much longer than five years.

it is not as simple as that because men and women perform very different roles in creating offspring. pregnancy / childbirth is a high-risk activity. many women die during labour. anyway, there is a point-of-no-return for all women when they decide to create a baby (about 24 weeks in to pregnancy, i believe). i hear that, in south dakota, they are currently debating whether to deny women the right to have an abortion at any stage - even if the fetus is conceived via an act of incest or rape.

going back to the court case, the way i see it is that the man broke an agreement. if it had been a business arrangement, there would have been legal consequences for pulling out of a deal at such a critical stage. but, in this scenario, the damage he has caused is far worse than someone breaking a business contract - his actions have prevented a person from ever becoming a parent. i don't relate to this personally, but, some people see parenthood as the sole purpose for their existence. to knowingly deprive someone of that is truly wicked.


i would've thought that this was possible. i could be wrong.


thanks for the reminder!