The K M Links Game - October 2024 Week 1
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
No best answer has yet been selected by Whickerman. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.He gave his sperm.No question!
To be blunt - the only difference was it didnt impregate her eggs in the normal fashion.
He even went into a room and provided it himself.
She is not being selfish - all she wants is her impregnated embyros - which he was aparty to.
No difference to other couple who have children then split up - or indeed the females who dont even know who the father is.
This case is different to other infertile people because she has -what I have referred to before - her potential children.I would feel exactly the same as her and would fight tooth and nail for my rights.
Okay - the IVF might not work but at least she wouldnt spend the rest of her life wondering about the destruction of their embryos due to the spite and shallowness of this despicable little man.He is not only depriving her - remember!!!
stoo_pid - I appreciate that you appreciate my opinion.
I did at one point say their embryos but I did slip up somewhere else.I feel strongly because she didnt co-erce him into it.Its like having a baby and you split up and someone comes along and says - I have to take this baby from you beacuse the father no longer wants to be a father and he doesnt know how you are going to bring this child up.I know I am in the realms of fantasy here but thats how I would feel.
this post is proving very emotive, but I still think that the court has made the correct decision.
because his wishes are against hers, does not make him spiteful, shallow or despicable. He has merely defended his rights not to be forced into parenthood with someone he no longer loves. He has merely asserted his rights whilst recognising the viewpoint of his ex-lover.
I do not think he agreed he might want to have children with her. I think he agreed he would have children with her. The woman is not asking for the man's sperm. She is demanding her own eggs, fertilised by the man, but still her own eggs. The effect of her getting pregnant would be minor on him, but the effect of this decision is disproportionately large on her. People say, she does not have the right to have children, but he has the right to decide to have them (or not). So - men have rights - women do not. This is what this decision does. As I see it, the man is getting preferential treatment here. Sorry, I do not mean disrespect to people to adopt, but I cannot accept that the man's convenience (wishes if you like) must trump all other considerations.
So if the decision were otherwise presumably that would mean that women have rights and men don't? Or that women are getting preferential treatment? Well?
Emotions aside, it is immoral to force somebody into fatherhood when he does not want children: this is the crux of the matter and therefore the decision is just.
They had already started going down the IVF route when it was discovered that she had ovarian cancer.
I fail to see where his deceit as some have classified it to be, has occurred. They split up, as a lot of people in relationships / marriages do, childless with no further bonds between them. And she can still be a mother, there are other options open to her other than using the frozen embryo's fertilised by his sperm. And yes, he can still be a father, in the future, as he has described in a manner that he wants to be a father - ie hands on.
I feel very sad for her, in that she was undergoing IVF treatment when it was discovered she had ovarian cancer, and treatment would result in her becoming completely infertile afterwards, however, her rights have not been breached here -- she underwent the fertilisation of her eggs in the knowledge that up to implantation of the embryo's both parties had to be in agreement at all stages of the process. They both agreed and signed to this. To allow the implantation would be not only a breach of his rights as he is no longer in agreement but also a breach of contract originally made.
Someone has implied that denying her the implantation causes more suffering to her than it would to him by allowing it to happen. I think to know that you have a genetic child but are unable to participate in that childs upbringing would cause many emotional distress and suffering. I hope that couples who are now undergoing IVF are now considering what should happen to the embryo's should they split up before implantation, as suggested by the law lord when the case was originally heard.
http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/POOLED/ARTICLES/BF_NEW SART/VIEW.ASP?Q=BF_NEWSART_109643
A very similar case has just come up here in Ireland. Two main differences - the couple were married, and here there's a written constitution which rightly or wrongly recognises life as beginning at conception, and the right to life is enshrined in the constitution. I fear it will have the opposite result in teh Irish courts.
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.