Frozen Embryo's Heartless or not what do you think.?

Question

I was shocked to hear how heartless the man could be. This woman cannot have children, yet her ex sat calmly saying he was not ready for fatherhood.

I hope in years to come when he is ready for fatherhood he thinks back to the womans life he has now shattered.

Why could he have not allowed her to try is beyond me.
She could have fulfilled her maternal instincts but i guess she will never have that opportunity now.

What does everyone else think.

There is a lot of different points coming across. I agree that he has his say. I don't agree with the adoption answer. It is a long process and the law now says the child has the right to know who the real parents are. This could destroy her again.

And to all who said he was right, what if it was him who had testicular cancer, would the outcome have been different.

He can copulate and populate but they agreed to freeze embryo's because of her illness, but for him to back out to get back at her, or something else because they are no longer in love is wrong. He could have had a court draw up papers not allowing him to be named.

Answer 1

I totally agree with you he has taken this women's only hope of having her own biological children. He is being so selfish he could have it legally done that he has nothing to do with this baby's but he is only concerned with his needs. They had both agreed on taking this route with the frozen embryo's and if they had made a child together naturally then split up what would he do then? I think those embryo's are babies already and one mans ego has destroyed them. To be honest they may not of even survived being put into the womb but the women and the babies deserved the Chance. I totally feel for this womens loss as she has lost the babies she fought so hard to save.

Answer 2

Heartless? Yes!!
Brainless? I don't think so.

I am stuck on this one.
They must have had a massive break up!

I thik that if he was once planning on having children with her (Which he obviously was to have had embryo's frozen in the first place) then she should have been allowed to use the embryo's now.
If she was healthy before then the chances are they would have had children together. There are plenty of single parents out there who have children and then split
I find it sad that the lady has been through so much already with her illness and now she has to face the fact that she will never have her own biological children.

Having said that if the man had agreed to let her use the embryo's then he would be a Father, He would have a child with someone he doesn't love and he would be half responsible for the child, and what happens when the child asks who they're Father is?. He is right in the fact that he should be able to have children as and when he wants to but he has taken that choice from her, and if it was me I can't imagine saying no and having that control over something so important to someone.

Answer 3

I think it is wrong for a man to be forced into being a father. When a woman says she is on the pill etc and tries to get pregnant on purpose. However, when he gave his sperm he agreed to be a father - after all he knew what they were going to do with it! They were at an IVF clinic creating embryos to have frozen to impregnate after she had the all clear from ovarian cancer!!!
The reason the freeze embryos rather than eggs is that they have more chance of taking.
I am sure that they could have drawn up something to say that he wouldn't have to support it and he could have been involved if he wanted to.
If you had sex and then split up and then found out your ex was pregnant you could not force her to have an abortion because you were not ready to have children. He agreed to make the children!
I know that she probably could have doner eggs and sperm but this is her only chance to ave a biological child. He has the option of deciding when and if he has a child in the future. How could he have sat and watched that broken woman on the news yesterday and not said go ahead?
To those who think well tough - put yourself in her position!
I hope that women avoid this heartless man like the plague!!

Answer 4

Although it seems pretty heartless I have to agree with the courts decision. He has the right to choose not to be the father of this woman's children. Whatever took place between them in the past is not a matter of law. This man no longer has any relationship to this woman, so he has stated that he does not want any children by this woman. I can understand how she must feel as this was probably her last chance of conceiving. Her prognosis as far as the cancer goes was not good, although I don't think the court was interested in her medical problem, just what the law says regarding this mans part in the conception of children. Sometimes judges have extremely difficult decisions to make and they are not always favourable to everyone. Can you imagine the outcome if they had decided not to take into consideration this mans legal wishes, there would have been hell to play. As I said I feel so sorry for this woman, but I think the right decision was made.

Answer 5

There are enough children in this world who have not got two good parents. This guy knows that he is not ready for the financial and emotional commitment of being a father and is it fair to put a child through that?

You're quite right that adoption is not the answer in this case it doesn't replace having your own children when you know that you may well have been able to have your own if it wasn't for someone else's bloody mindedness. Think of how she would have treated an adopted child?

I think one of the problems with the law in this situation is that the man couldn't sign a legally binding contract absolving him of all responsibility towards this child. Because if he could then he may well have agreed to this.

But then is that fair on the child?

I think that this woman has learned a very harsh lesson getting herslf involved with this guy that has scarred her for life.

A very deep and interesting question.

Answer 6

Actually say he had allowed it, then if she sadly caught cancer again and died or felt the need to chase him up for maintainence in the future, on a child he never actually wanted or consented to have? That's just so wrong! Better to bring children into the world who are wanted by both their parents, it damages children so much to have a parent who is not interested in them.
I heard the man interviewed and he said, quite rightly I thought, there was nothing to stop this woman having IVF babies with a new partner or via donated sperm. He siad he didn't want to stop her having children he just didn't want to her to have his children, which is his choice, he has a new partner now. How would you and your partner feel if an x partner started having your children from your harvested sperm, without your consent?
The woman also said in her interview it was denying her, her right to be a Mother. No one has a right to a parent, it is a priveledge not a right!
I'm sorry but I was on the side of the guy here 100%.

Answer 7

We,none of us,know the full story,here, and have no right to judge-merely pass comment. These embryos were created at an extremely emotionally charged time-a woman just diagnosed with cancer-scrambling to harvest viable eggs before treatment can begin.Her then partner,agreed,under those conditions to allow said eggs to be fertilised. Fast foreward then to a (non)couple,her ,treated and in remission.We know nothing of the circumstances of the split-could have been vitriolic or amicable. Regardless of this,I believe no lawyer could draft a contract that would convince the CSA that the natural father of a child had no responsibility for said child and would persue him with great vigour. Under those circumstances,surely,you could not blame the man for refusing his consent!

Answer 8

If this man ever really loved this woman I would have thought that he would have given her the opportunity to become a mother. I know I would have. They went through so much together and went as far as freezing these embryo's so that could have this family in the future, even though they are no longer together I would have thought he would have had the heart and said of course you can use them. He's probably scared of the CSA getting hold of him and stinging him for child support. I think he should take a look at what he's done cos he's basically just killed off his own child by having them destroyed!

Answer 9

I am reluctant to judge anyone, let alone people I do not know at all.
On the face of it he has nothing to lose. But maybe he fears it is a way of keeping them still linked together.
Is it not possible to make some kind of agreement so that her new partner(if she has one) adopts the child?
I think it unlikely he is heartless. It is possible that he wants to punish her, but it may be quite some other reason he has.
It may be that he does not trust her motives, and for all any of us know he might be right to do so.
Sad though that she went through all the procedures for nothing.
She will not be the only childless woman in the world by a long chalk. Sometimes it can be best to accept that some things just aren't going to happen.

Answer 10

The laws about this do not cover these circumstances. It is those that are at fault, not the man's basic right to have children when he chooses. If this had been allowed, then the rights of men when it came to children would be nothing. A man could not demand a woman have his child, so this should not be allowed the other way. Plus would he be liable to pay for the child's upkeep, if this had gone through?However, I have a lot of sympathy for the lady concerned, because they have both been victims of ill thought out laws and science playing god.

Answer 11

If any kids had been born from this against the guy's wishes (ie a legal decision to force him to agree), how do you think the kids would feel knowing the circumstances of their birth? pretty shi**y I would think.

The judgement is the correct one. No-one has a 'right' to be a parent - either out of pity or a last chance gasp.

If it is possible for someone to have a 'right' to be a parent, then it is fair and just for a person to have the 'right' not to be a parent.

Just a final thought...they are not her embryos. It was her egg and it was his sperm, but the embryos have joint ownership. Just like you cant sell a house if it is two names and one person says no.