2007-10-19 08:10:07 · 12 answers · asked by naveh4 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
I wanted to add a detail. The one in question was done for other reasons, not because he thought he might die, and his mother was against the wife doing it.
2007-10-19 08:21:45 · update #1
I am divided on this question. I believe that if the couple decided they would do it if something happened and the husband was killed, then it is o.k. But, if they just froze the sperm in case the husband was infertile when he got back from the war, then he did not consent to the pregnancy. Why bring a fatherless child into the world just to have a part of the man who died. Let the soldiers rest in peace, don't do drastic things because of your own grief. I can never imagine what the widows are going through and I don't mean this in a bad way, but maybe they should just let their husbands rest in peace. The children will never know their fathers, it seems like an injustice to the child to start out it's life without a father.
2007-10-19 08:26:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
His mother has no say in it. The collection and storage of the sperm should be a decision between the soldier and his wife. Since he is no longer in the picture, the decision about the sperm's use should only be hers.
The couple obviously had made a decision to have, at least, one child, and the fact that he MIGHT die was inherent in his occupation. They might have had a child, together, and one or the other parent might STILL have died, even after the military service. There should be no controversy.
2007-10-19 08:26:57 · answer #2 · answered by Vince M 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it's wonderful! Keeping his memory alive through his flesh and blood! Beautiful. And the fact that modern medicine has come that far!!! Unbelievable.
On the flip side of that, many of these women might not be prepared to take that trek into single parenting, especially since the grieving process takes a long time!!! Sticky situation but I like the possibilities!!!
2007-10-19 08:15:36 · answer #3 · answered by wondermom 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say that if you marry a person then generally you are accepting to have children with them.
I would also say his mother may be against this because she worries about her level of contact with her grandchild.
It's a personal issue and as she will have no comeback on him then her decision is probably best left up to her.
2007-10-19 08:41:25 · answer #4 · answered by snaffle 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i can understand that. if the unnecessary war hadnt happened they would have been able to a family with the fathers around. they dint have anything left of the. also if they are happy and willing to bring up a child alone, thats a very brave decision and they have my support
2007-10-19 08:13:42 · answer #5 · answered by Mossy Jan 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Obviously the father was fine with it or he wouldnt have donated! so i think it's fine.
Sad for the baby, but there are alot of kids without dads and at least he would know that he would've been loved.
2007-10-19 08:18:43 · answer #6 · answered by qnbee1 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If they have had the forethought to do this and they and their husbands agree to do this, then I'm all for it. People like this are usually very responsible and thoughtful people who would be great parents, single or otherwise. I wish this didn't have to be happening, though.
2007-10-19 08:20:12 · answer #7 · answered by gma 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If medical possibilities become a reality there will always be someone who wants it. The procedure you describe exists, therefore so do the women who want it.
2007-10-19 08:29:25 · answer #8 · answered by Dr Watson (UK) 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's an excellent idea. It'll keep family lineage from dying out.
2007-10-19 10:24:02 · answer #9 · answered by kenoplayer 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's their choice. Who are we to judge. I wish them well. Good luck. 2D
2007-10-19 09:28:52 · answer #10 · answered by 2D 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋