If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
So would you apply the same logic to "accidents" which leads to the male wanting the female to terminate?
If not, what is the difference?
That is technically possible for any man who has had sex, especially unprotected sex.
No. Hence another reason why the European Court was right. Like I said her argument was flawed at that level and they couldn't rule any other way.
i was saying it in a bitter way sorry
And if anyone says, "its not the same as having your own child", trust me, I know. I'm adopted. But adoption is still an option for this lady.
About the actual case, I feel sorry for her, but don't think her ex should have to be a father when he clearly doesn't want to be, or he'd just be another dad who buggers off & never sees his kids. I'm pretty sure we have enough of those kinda dads in the world to not want any more :no:
odd question, if he had the problem of conception and wanted a child would he be able to use a frozen embryo from a previous relationship? i doubt he would and rightfully so too
unlucky for the woman, yes she cant have a genetic child but she can still have IVF nonetheless so no loss really.... IVF isn't a right anyway imho
and consent has to hold all the way to a conceived embryo in the womb so he can withdraw it
slightly off topic: if the judge ruled she could use it and not have to mention him on birth certificate or claim maintenence or inform the child of who he is ie complete anonmity then i wouldnt complain at tthe judgement
no, simply because one involves a procedure on the mother to remove it from a symbiotic relationship with her body and can grow byitself in her with a chance of damaging her if the procedure was carried out
the other is effectively dead unless kept in liquid nitrogen and implanted at a later date so both parents have to consent in principal to implant it
That's not something she can give. As others have said what happens when the kiddie grows up and wants to meet their father.
MoK, what would you say if the roles were reversed and it had been him wanting to keep the baby?
In a natural pregnancy the choice to abort lies with the mother because she carries it. In this situation surely both parents should have the choice to abort the child.
Exactly what I was thinking.
If he could give birth. Or find a surrogate womb.
And she wouldn't in this case either?
So why shouldn't a man have the choice in all scenarios?
I haven't ignored that aspect and understand the concern.
It would be hard to meet up with your child and explain that you wanted them at one point, but as their mother was suffering from cancer and being treated for it, you decided to bugger off with your secretary. I can see why he would be worried about that.
Seeing as Natallies current partner was willing to be a parent to a child that would be biologically nothing to do with him, how about she takes a leaf out of his book and uses his sperm and a donor egg if she is that intent on becoming pregnant and giving birth? I think the bond you have with your child is more important than the biology / genetics. I know my child wasn't swapped at birth but you wouldn't pair us up together in a million years.
Seeing as the abortion of these embryo's does not involve a medical procedure on the mothers body, why shouldn't he have as much right in the choice to abort?
I know men don't normally get given this choice after conception, but this is not a normal conception.
It's harsh but it's the right decision.
Agree. Good post.
I agree, I'd certainly like to think that is the reason.
Do you know how they harvest the eggs in the first place?
He can nip behind a curtain and knock one off. For her it's a little different
Oh I don't know. Sperm meets egg - not much difference there really, is there?
The difference is in the implantation and the male has no role in that. Just as he doesn't after intercourse in a "natural" conception.
Like I said before, don't think that I cannot see the arguments on either side. I just find the irony amusing. When a foetus actually exists inside a womb, the father has no rights at all. When it doesn't the sperm donor (for that is all he is at that point) has right to abort.
Yea, makes me think of, if you have sex with someone, are you allowed to withdraw consent after fertilisation, but before implantation (however long that takes), forcing the woman to have abortive measures? (I don't know too much detail about the timing of babies unfortunately)
I did think though, what the heck is his prob. It's going to change her life, and to him it makes no difference whatsoever.
Yet in this case that reason doesn't exist.
The reason why a man doesn't have the choice to abort when a woman is carrying a child is that that she needs to give consent for a medical procedure on her body - and quite rightly so.
But in this situation no medical procedure has been, or will be perfomerd on her body without consent.
Just because he's a selfish cunt, doesn't mean this is the wrong decision. IMO anyway.
There's one important factor that makes all the difference, it's in the mothers body and any procedure on the foetus, effects her body too.
But it will.
He'll know he has a child and the child will know that he/she has a father.
Yeh, that would screw with your head.
If she were pregnant and he were trying to make her have an abortion i think people would have very different opinions on the matter.
I think she could just adopt a kid too tbqh.
and if she really wants a kid from birth, well use a donated egg
Adopting a child is totally different to having your own biological child though.
I agree with you Sofie, it seems that some people on here are missing the point that this was the woman's last chance to have her own biological child. Egg donation or adoption isn't the same.
it's not a right you know? she could use a donor egg still
True, but using a donor egg isn't the same as using her own, is it?
course it aint, but that doesnt require anymore consent
there is no right to have a biologicial child of your own
No one said that there is a RIGHT to have a biological child of your own, my point was that most women want to have a biological child and finding out it's not possible would be utterly devestating for most. Theres no debating that their are other options for her to have a child.
The debate is, in this case, whether she had a right to her own fertilised eggs. My view is that she does.
My thoughts exactly.