Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
If anyone hasn't heard about this in the news a full description can be found here:
I was wondering if anyone has a strong opinion either way on this? Was it right for the courts to rule in favour of the ex partner to have the fertilised embryo's destroyed, even though it was the last chance for this women to conceive naturally, (or at least as naturally as she can through IVF)?
Should the law be changed in the future, so that once the embryos have been created they can be used by either partner without the permission of the other, or would this be totally against someones human rights?
For my own part, I feel the courts got this one spot on. No one person has the right to force parenthood on the other party without their express permission. Although I am sure Natallie Evans would not have asked for any help in raising the child, it would raise all kinds of questions about visitation rights, joint custody and other parental issues.
I mean would anyone else like to think that an ex partners of theirs could be running around with what is essentially yours and your ex partners child? Would you be happy for your own flesh and blood to never know of your existance?
If Ms Evans is so desperate for a child, why not adopt. Someone who fights so passionately for the right to have a child would surely not be denied a chance to raise one?
i agree with the courts, both parents should consent to having a baby (eg having sex with out a condem means u know a baby can come around)
remember a few years ago, a woman performed oral sex on a man and kept a bit of semen and later fertilized herself with it, didn't that happen to that german tennis player, boris something?
Personally I think that the Courts got it wrong.
How many women have a one night stand and end up pregnant because of it? Lots. A number of these women go on to have the children, and never inform the "donor" of his "contribution". How is this any different to what Natallie Evans was after? Oh that's right, he wanted the baby until he found out that he'd be responsibly for another human life.
He loved her enough to create the embryos with her before she underwent the massive chemo to save her life. He's a bastard for leaving her in the very time she needed the most support, and then, knowing that she was completely incapable of conceiving naturally, destroyed her only chance to have children of her own.
If he never wanted to have kids, then there were alternatives for Natallie to preserve her chances of being a biological parent - freezing either eggs or even a section of (healthy) ovary. These options would have contained more risk of failure (to conceive), but would have allowed her the chance to conceive with anyone willing. Instead, in the "loving" relationship they had, they decided that they would create an embryo (or 6) for implantation in the future.
I can understand the "social" aspect of the decision, but come on, how many women are having kids without the donor's assistance? It was a decision based purely on the political generalisation of, "we can't have another single mother wandering around".
As far as I'm concerned, because his written consent was required prior to the creation (and subsequent freezing) of 6 viable embryos, his refusal to allow this to occur is a breach of the contract that existed between the two, a legally binding contract, and therefore should be an automatic finding in Natallie's favour.
Mysterious Member of the ANZAC Clan
ooooh goody, a dissenter!would you want a child with your ex AFTER you split up?Oh that's right, he wanted the baby until he found out that he'd be responsibly for another human life.
I say that technically they had the child BEFORE they split up, it was merely defered until such a time as it was safe to do so. The embryos were already created. His consent had nothing to do with the continuation of a pregnancy, only the beginning of one.
It's exactly like having a one night stand. If you consent to unprotected sex, and an embryo results from it, then whatever happens from that point on, has nothing to do with the "donor", and everything to do with the mother.
As far as "would I want to", well that's entirely dependant on the circumstances of the thing.
If it was concentual "conception", and we then split up before I knew, then while I might complain about it, there's nothing I could do to prevent it (short of violence).
I can't say that I'd willingly split up if I knew my partner was pregnant, however circumstances might have something else to say about it.
But if it was not a concentual (fraudulent) conception, then my rights would have been violated, and therefore a completely different situation.
In this case however, the conception, although artificial, was concentual.
-edit- There is one other thing that really needs to be understood about IVF, no matter how viable an embryo is, there are absolutely no guarrantees. There is a very real possibility that none of the 6 embryos will make to to term. It can take some couples 3 or 4 (or more) attempts to finally carry an IFV child to term. It might seem a little like Russian Roulette for the "donor", but I think Natallie has earned the right to attempt to bear her own child.
Mysterious Member of the ANZAC Clan
Technically, he may have done the dirty,
however all he really agreed was, "I would like to have a child with you in the future."
"He didn't commit to having a child right there and then."
There is a great difference between those two statements.
It would be like making someone pay for a holiday in full 5 years in advance when a deposit would suffice.
Humanity has no Eye of Tzeentch to see the future. It's brash making plans for something big without proper thought (which i understand he didn't have).
I don't think this is about men or women, i think that's an unhealthy tangent for this thread. I think it IS about commitment and whether the children have indeed already a right to life.
None the less, bloody good points MPDScott. Bravo.
'Technically' they didn't have a child before hand as it wasn't implanted in a woman.
'Technically' they had a child because an egg was fertilised.
Either way, I sympathise with the woman, but she can't force a man to have a child with her.
In the same way a man can't force a woman to be impregnated by him.
However, this isn't her last chance. With techniques for egg nucleus replcement, they can give her babies if she wants it that much and with a partner that she still loves.
Cervantes: In order to attain the impossible, one must attempt the absurd.
You have put your case across very well, but I am afraid I respectfully disagree.
To be honest, I find her position rather incomprehensible.
Okay, she's infertile and she wants a baby. That I can understand.
What I don't understand is this pointless desire to have a baby with your own genetic material.. What difference would it make? Does she honestly believe that just because 50% of a child's genetics is hers it's going to make it a better person, or give her a better relationship with it than with anyone else in the world?
I don't think she's in a position to have a baby.. She's desperate, irrational and, ultimately, doesn't want a thinking, independent child, but a tool to teach her more about herself and fill the gaps in her life. That may sound cold, but infertility doesn't mean you can't have a child. All it means is that this silly fantasy of giving birth to a little clone of yourself is gone, which is probably a positive thing for the health of the offspring.That's just the thing.. Paternity is an obligation and responsibility, even if it's just being pestered for meetings by some unwanted son or daughter 20 years down the line. How is it fair that someone can be forced to take on a obligation like that without willful consent? Even the guy who has a one night stand doesn't want to have a baby.. Is it really fair that he's then forced to take responsibility for something he's never consented to.Originally Posted by mpdscott
Sure, the way he reacted is a little cruel and quite irrational, but it's comprehensible. We live in a society where paternity carries few rights and a lot of responsibilities.