frozen embryo's , ok this is a tricky one i can see both sides of the dilema but what i cant understand is ?

Question

the woman Natallie Evans, 35,lost her appeal to have her last chance to have a baby by her exboyfriend saying ...He argued he did not want her to have his baby because he did not want the financial or emotional burden of being a father to a child he would not bring up.
ok fair enough but what gives him the right for him to ask for embryos he fertilised before they separated to be destroyed by the clinic where they are stored.
dosnt she have a say in this also ? i mean if they made this request together why cant he just let her have them she has stated she wouldnt ask for his support in bringing up this child and also i find it sad that he can go on with his life and be a father if he chooses to ,and this poor woman cant due to cancer this was her only chance of being a mother ,life sure isnt fair

Answer 1

I thing they should bring out a new law.Before anyone undergoes this treatment at the very beginning . Agreeing that no one will be able to pull out as soon as the treatment starts.This way people are 100 sure of what they are getting themselves in for at the start and woman aren`t left broken hearted because of men who are full of empty promises.It is also a waist of a life which has begun because a man has decided to change his mind.There are some men that really do want children at any cost.These are the people who should be prioritesed for this treatment .

Answer 2

It is very difficult,however in this day and age we have a society which governs the way that things have to be supported.
It is okay if the mother says that she wont ask for any financial support but welfare agencies would force her hand to claim against the father.Then bitterness will take over the joy of parenthood and the it wont just be one or two lives ruined by the events of parenthood,but all three will be affected by the choices of the state.
So the choice to have the embryos destroyed by the clinic would be the best all round for all concerned.I know that sounds hard and cold but in the end there wont be any winners.
I think that the judgment is the right one on moral grounds,the alternative is adoption and that would make a small child very happy.

Answer 3

I can see both sides of the argument. I can understand the man not wanting to now be a father to child with a woman he is no longer involved with. There would undoubtedly be some sort of financial and emotional relationship, and in 18 years time, that child would want/have a right to know who its father is.
However, I can also feel for the woman. This is the only way she will ever have a biological child of her own. What upsets me is that if she had become pg naturally by the same man, once conception has occured and that embryo is viable, he can't then withdraw consent, or change his mind. What is done, is done. If she had been implanted a few days after they broke up, or a few months before he withdrew consent but after they had separated, he would have no comeback.
Like I said, I can see it from both sides, although my heart says she should be allowed to have them.

Answer 4

It would have been magnanimous of him if he had've allowed her that chance out of compassion. I don't know what I would've done in his shoes but sometimes in life people are able to do things which transcend all our selfish & egotistical wants. I recommend to watch the film 'Three Colours Blue' by Krystof Kieslowski. There is alot about love coming out of life's painful events. I hope in such a situation I would have what it takes to be unselfish. I also agree he agreed to have eggs fertilized - those embryos are real conceptions - It's like having a child & then saying "I've changed my mind & I want to give it back now".There are many problems surrounding delaying the process from conception to birth. I am not a manic pro-lifer, but I do think people should take it seriously that those embryos they're creating are human beings. Who says anybody, let alone the Father, has the 'right' to destroy them.

Answer 5

In some situations it doesn't matter what is wanted by either or both parents, If the authorities get involved, for any reason, what they say goes. Ask any parent that has had the social services interfere.
Families in the Scottish Islands were torn apart by false accusations of child abuse, most if the parents still have not been reunited with their children. Many have no idea where their children are because it has been decided, arbitrarily by bureaucrats, that the kids are better off with other families.

Answer 6

I completely agree with you, I think the court should have made allowances in this case, the ex boyfriend made a statement that he wanted to choose who to have a child with and when he has a child, I just thought omg surely you did that when u fertilised this woman's eggs knowing full well that this was her last chance. And shouldn't he take note of how selfish that sounded because at least he can choose weather or not to have children, Natallie had that right taken from her. He strikes me as a very selfish man with little regard to this woman's feelings or indeed rights as a human being. Your right surely she should have had just as much say as to what happened with her own eggs. I heard that It was he that turned around to her one day and just ended the relationship, how was she to for see that happening. I really do feel that In this case the law has made and *** of It's self.

Answer 7

This is an awful situation. Isn't he quoted as saying something like he never wanted children with her anyway? Perhaps he should have thought about that before agreeing to his sperm being used to fertilise the embryos... It's very sad as that was the only chance she would EVER get to have her own, biological child. However, he cannot waive any rights to the child and would be responsible for it - even if between the mother and father they agreed that he wouldn't be. It's very sad as they obviously thought they would be together forever.

Answer 8

She has a say but he would have been legally responsible for potential children he didn't want. A written agreement between them that he is absolved of any responsibility for them wouldn't stand up in court if she later took proceedings against him for maintenance costs - the CSA has overridden such clauses in cases where couples drew up separation agreements with this clause, and they later pursued the father for maintenance.

The choice was between forcing unwanted responsibility on the father or the lady losing the potential to be a mother. Legally one can't make someone assume a responsibility they don't want so the court came to the correct decision.

Answer 9

I freely admit to being anti-abortion except in very few exceptional cases, but I find it hard to accept that the embryos had to be destroyed at the father's request when it was a joint decision in the first place.
If Ms Evans had become pregnant as a result of this treatment would he have the right to demand that she had an abortion because he had changed his mind about parenthood? I think not.

Answer 10

I haven't been following this and don't know the whole story, but I think this is the first case of this so they're just now making up the rules.
Since they're fetuses in a jar, they don't only belong to the woman. And if she has cancer and then dies in a year, the ex-boyfriend is going to be responsible for the baby for the next 17 years.