Frozen Embrio Case

[Colr]

Suprised nobody has picked up on this.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...075264,00.html

A WOMAN who yesterday lost a court battle to use her frozen embryos to have a baby has made an emotional appeal for help to the one person on earth who can enable her to become a mother — her estranged former fiancé.



Natallie Evans, who was left infertile after cancer treatment, said that she was devastated that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) had ruled that she cannot use embryos created in 2001 with Howard Johnston, then her fiancé, because he had since withdrawn his consent.


I am in agreement with the issues on consent but I am surprised that it has gone this far and that her partner is so intrasegent. I would imagine any concenrs he has could be dealt with by legal agreement.

You get the impression he is a total shitbag just out to get at his ex-partner but profiles/opinions/details on him in the press are really thin.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Colr

I am in agreement with the issues on consent but I am surprised that it has gone this far and that her partner is so intrasegent. I would imagine any concenrs he has could be dealt with by legal agreement.

I have to say, it seems harsh. but then we don't know the people involved so who knows whats going on. maybe he doesn't think she'd be a fit mother, maybe he just doesn't want his child to be born, and doesn't give a stuff about legal issues.

it's all a tragic mess. but then i'm against the whole idea to begin with.

i'm also quite surprised at the verdict. men's opinions in these matters counts for nowt usually.

[Hiberni-mum]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

I have to say, it seems harsh. but then we don't know the people involved so who knows whats going on. maybe he doesn't think she'd be a fit mother, maybe he just doesn't want his child to be born, and doesn't give a stuff about legal issues.

it's all a tragic mess. but then i'm against the whole idea to begin with.

i'm also quite surprised at the verdict. men's opinions in these matters counts for nowt usually.

I agree - it would be good to hear his reasons for saying no apart from the financial side which was reported. I sort of feel sorry for her because its the only chance she has of having her own kids and she has been through a difficult time, taking her ovaries away could have made her feel like less of a woman because she wouldn't be able to have kids. On the other hand there are other options open to her and if things are that bad between her and the ex maybe its better they dont have kids together.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Colr

I would imagine any concenrs he has could be dealt with by legal agreement.

Unless his concerns are that he doesn't want a child of his brought up by somebody he's acrimoniously fallen out with ??

Or doesn't want a child of his that he can't be an on-site father to.

Can't say as I blame him, I would hate to know my kids were out there but only have partial or no involvement with them.

[Purple & Green]

The absolutely right decision was reached. This should never have gone to court let alone the court of appeal . I sympathise with the lady but her desires are purely selfish even though they represent possibly the majority of womens views. No one has any right to have children and these embryos are just genetic matter as far as the law is concerned rightly or wrongly. Both parents had the right to withdraw their consent regarding the development of the embryos and they entered into this arrangement with this explicit "get out "clause that either of them could utilise. The people that think this decision is wrong dont understand the ramifications of the decision if it had been decided differently. Effectively no abortions could be carried out without giving the father the right to either consent or otherwise to the abortion. The whole legal reasoning anyway is shot to peices as women can abort children now using the argument that they have a right to decide what to do with their own bodies yet in this case it is explicitly expressed that there are inherent rights to the father regarding exactly the same genetic matter , an embryo, it is just as easy to remove a healthy embryo as it is to destroy one....... Taking this argument further, rather than grant abortions left right and centre , would'nt it be just as easy to remove the embryo and then decide whether it could be donated to another potential "parent" . If no agreement could be reached after 5 years (just like in this lady's case) then the embryo could be disposed with, much as they will be in this ladys case.

From another forum, but I'm too lazy to re-write it.

[Purple & Green]

Originally Posted by Colr

You get the impression he is a total shitbag just out to get at his ex-partner but profiles/opinions/details on him in the press are really thin.

Don't be taken in by the feminazi journalists.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by Brian

Unless his concerns are that he doesn't want a child of his brought up by somebody he's acrimoniously fallen out with ??

Or doesn't want a child of his that he can't be an on-site father to.

Can't say as I blame him, I would hate to know my kids were out there but only have partial or no involvement with them.

If he doesn't want kids he doesn't have to have anything to do with them but I was thinking more on the financial side. She doesn't have to take any money from him.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Colr

If he doesn't want kids he doesn't have to have anything to do with them but I was thinking more on the financial side. She doesn't have to take any money from him.

Can you not grasp that he might not wish to be party to bringing a child into the world (leaving aside for the moment, my opinion that he's already done that).

I find it hard to credit that it is beyond contemplation that that this rather than money, might be his motive.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Colr

If he doesn't want kids he doesn't have to have anything to do with them but I was thinking more on the financial side. She doesn't have to take any money from him.

Could you have kids and quite happily have nothing to do with them ?

Not sure I could

[BurbankHibee]

Originally Posted by Brian

Could you have kids and quite happily have nothing to do with them ?

There are many "fathers" who have nothing to do with their kids, they are referred to as dead beat dads.

In any event, becuase of the circumstances in this case, the woman should get her baby and forget what the bloke thinks. The real problems are in the legal domain and whether he is going to get hit up at a later date for cash.

[davhfc]

surely if the mother was allowed to have the kid then it would be unfair on the child knowing his father did not want him

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by BurbankHibee

There are many "fathers" who have nothing to do with their kids, they are referred to as dead beat dads.

In any event, becuase of the circumstances in this case, the woman should get her baby and forget what the bloke thinks. The real problems are in the legal domain and whether he is going to get hit up at a later date for cash.

On what rational / logical basis do you arrive at that conclusion? Or should sympathy for someone's plight be basis enough for legal judgement?

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by davhfc

surely if the mother was allowed to have the kid then it would be unfair on the child knowing his father did not want him

I think abortion laws have established that the rights of children are immaterial in such circumstances.

[Purple & Green]

Originally Posted by BurbankHibee

There are many "fathers" who have nothing to do with their kids, they are referred to as dead beat dads.

In any event, because of the circumstances in this case, the woman should get her baby and forget what the bloke thinks. The real problems are in the legal domain and whether he is going to get hit up at a later date for cash.

This is not the first time this has happened. Why this one is big news is because she has cancer and has no more chances of making eggs. In the other cases, there were fertility problems, but she could still make eggs.

If she wanted the option of having children independently of him, she should've had unfertilised eggs frozen. As it is, she chose to tie her chances of having children with this man, knowing that he could withhold consent. She should not complain about him exercising the choices that she knew he had, and which she tied herself to.

It is a rough deal, but nature made it's choice about her. She had another chance of having children trough ivf and that hasn't worked out either. That's life, you cant always get what you want, and you have to live with those facts.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by BurbankHibee

There are many "fathers" who have nothing to do with their kids, they are referred to as dead beat dads.

In any event, becuase of the circumstances in this case, the woman should get her baby and forget what the bloke thinks. The real problems are in the legal domain and whether he is going to get hit up at a later date for cash.

So because there are some "dead beat dads", all fathers in this type of scenario should automatically lose any rights to choose whether they become fathers or not ?

[BurbankHibee]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

On what rational / logical basis do you arrive at that conclusion?

I'm going by that there was an agreement before hand between the couple. At this point, I don't know what the bloke's motives are for changing his mind but to me he is going back on the obvious intention of the agreement.

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

Or should sympathy for someone's plight be basis enough for legal judgement?

yes, it quite often is already.

[BurbankHibee]

Originally Posted by Brian

So because there are some "dead beat dads", all fathers in this type of scenario should automatically lose any rights to choose whether they become fathers or not ?

I was only making the point (and answering a specific question) that there are plenty "fathers" who do choose to have nothing to do with their offspring. And that observation would have nothing to do with this case.

[BurbankHibee]

Originally Posted by Bobby S

It is a rough deal, but nature made it's choice about her. She had another chance of having children trough ivf and that hasn't worked out either. That's life, you cant always get what you want, and you have to live with those facts.

Sure it's rough, but it seems a bit cruel though.


BTW, who is that in your avatar ?

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by BurbankHibee

yes, it quite often is already.

that is not my impression.

The point Bobby quotes above is relevant here. If this woman had the right to override the father's wishes here, then in an abortion case the father would logically also have a right of veto. And, hey, maybe they should. But the point is, legal judgements need to consider these things.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by BurbankHibee

I was only making the point (and answering a specific question) that there are plenty "fathers" who do choose to have nothing to do with their offspring. And that observation would have nothing to do with this case.

Ok, fair enough. But if the father in question is not one of those, do you not think it's reasonable for him not to want to have a child with his now estranged wife ?

[Colr]

Originally Posted by Bobby S

The absolutely right decision was reached. This should never have gone to court let alone the court of appeal . I sympathise with the lady but her desires are purely selfish even though they represent possibly the majority of womens views. No one has any right to have children and these embryos are just genetic matter as far as the law is concerned rightly or wrongly. Both parents had the right to withdraw their consent regarding the development of the embryos and they entered into this arrangement with this explicit "get out "clause that either of them could utilise. The people that think this decision is wrong dont understand the ramifications of the decision if it had been decided differently. Effectively no abortions could be carried out without giving the father the right to either consent or otherwise to the abortion. The whole legal reasoning anyway is shot to peices as women can abort children now using the argument that they have a right to decide what to do with their own bodies yet in this case it is explicitly expressed that there are inherent rights to the father regarding exactly the same genetic matter , an embryo, it is just as easy to remove a healthy embryo as it is to destroy one....... Taking this argument further, rather than grant abortions left right and centre , would'nt it be just as easy to remove the embryo and then decide whether it could be donated to another potential "parent" . If no agreement could be reached after 5 years (just like in this lady's case) then the embryo could be disposed with, much as they will be in this ladys case.

Legally, I completely agree with you but as we know the law is what we use to resolve our disputes when people cannot act reasonably.

I would love to know more about these people and what motivates them. I already refered to the male partner but I'd like to know more about her as well.

I'm generally against women deliberately raising kids in single families - most especially when they rely in benefits to do so (i.e. my tax that I should be spending on raising my own child). I would like to know what her plans and situation are.