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
woman loses bid to use embryo from ex partner
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/4780346.stm
not the exact story but the european courts have turned her down now i believe, its just not on the bbc site
and here is most recent part
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article349770.ece
i feel sorry for the woman in her desire to have a child, except she should have read the small print in that it takes both partners to consent to impregnating her, and the guy now doesn't want to have an estranged child so its her fault really
a woman might rightfully have the right to abort a foetus despite a partner or expartners objections, however in terms of conception, both people have a say in the final matter
having a child of your 'own' is not a right
not the exact story but the european courts have turned her down now i believe, its just not on the bbc site
and here is most recent part
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article349770.ece
i feel sorry for the woman in her desire to have a child, except she should have read the small print in that it takes both partners to consent to impregnating her, and the guy now doesn't want to have an estranged child so its her fault really
a woman might rightfully have the right to abort a foetus despite a partner or expartners objections, however in terms of conception, both people have a say in the final matter
having a child of your 'own' is not a right
0
Comments
but i can also understand why the father does not want an estranged child as well, my head hurts from confusion
My heart goes out to the woman in question but I also have no trouble understanding the position and objection of her ex.
Ultimately I concur, I think the court made the right decision.
Very sad for all concerned, and a tough call, but like others I believe it was the right decision.
I happen to think that once you consent, your consent remains in cases like this. I don't see why this man should get to spitefully destroy this woman's dreams, and all my sympathies lie with this woman.
In law it was the right decision, but the morally right decision would be to get a baseball bat and teach Mr Johnston a lesson he won't forget in a hurry.
so someone can't withdraw consent to have something done before it's actually done?
or
lets say she had a kid from some of the frozen embryos, and then the male donor mets a woman at a point when he or her cannot concieve and wants to use those embryos on his new partner, should he be allowed to? even if the female donor says no?
The baby is already there, in a little tube.
It's already been done. If it was a natural conception, it'd be out of his hands now.
That's how it should be in this case too.
More macho posturing I see
Do you realise how ridiculous you sound, you used to be quite sensible I seem to remember...........
He had an affair so he deserves to be killed? Brutal beatings as punishment? All very sensible, glad you or people like you aren't in power, it would be a Taliban hellhole.......
That's irrelevant.
IMHO he signed up to be a father when he created the embryos with his sperm. He should not be allowed to change his mind because he's a spiteful pathetic little creature.
So he should have an unwanted baby with an unwanted partner. That seems crazy.
Course it is. Everything is natural, we are part of nature.
Presumably if he was still in a relationship he would have had a say in exactly where and when these embyo's get used (or not). Why is it different when he isn't?
The relationship status is irrelevant IMHO.
He became a father the day those embryos were created. He shouldn't be allowed to bellyache about it now, and he certainly shouldn't be allowed to destroy this woman simply because he is a spiteful little boy and has got his mistress up the duff.
Legally he can, hence this decision, but morally he has no right to.
the embryo is currently not in the woman thus it is not equivilent to a regular conception as it doesnt depend on her body, it is currently dependant on being frozen
if she didnt want kids, and the guy did, could he use those eggs in a new partner if need be?
I don't think that makes any odds.
I fully understand why the law is how it is, and I can fully understand why this man doesn't want his ex to have children. But I don't think he should be allowed to veto it in this way, for exactly the same reasons that the widowed Mrs Blunt was allowed to have children a few years ago.
I don't see why not.
i believe that he gave permission before he died or not?
Mr Blunt never gave permission for his sperm to be used.
It was assumed from his previous actions. Which is exactly what should have happened this time.
I can see both sides to this argument, but this man signed up to be a dad five years ago, he can't change his mind like this now that he knows his ex can't do anything. I rather suspect the selfish little child is getting off on the power trip of it all, having his ex begging him in public like this.
What a horrible individual.
I think what adds another dimension is child support, can you force to contribute if they decided against becoming a father. Would the CSA not chase him in this case like they do everyone else regardless of private agreements.
Probably is, I can't really remember what his name was.
That's one of the stumbling blocks, any agreement would be outside the law.
It's a big mess really. The law should be cleared up- the father can withdraw consent, but not have to pay. Seems fair enough.
As I've said, legally this was the correct decision. I can't say that it was ethically.
I quite agree. You can't just tear the law up because it's unethical.
I don't think they're any different to the Blood circumstances.
The real villain of the piece is Mr Johnston of Gloucester, and I don't think anyone should divert their bile anywhere but towards that odious piece of filth.
i dont see how you can say it was ethically wrong, i say it was her bad decision not to just have eggs stored or something, and if she is that eager for a child she could go through regular IVF or adopt
well there is conventional IVF and adoption still
and imo someone should be allowed to withdraw their consent like this simply because it is only fair and ethical
allowing her to really concieve ie have the embryo implanted inside her (as most probably the embryo was technically concieved in a petrie dish and instantly frozen after it starts to grow) would be the most unethical option as they entered a joint agreement, and thus both have the continual right to disallow the final (permenent) step as up until then that embryo hasnt even seen her body
I don't think that she should be allowed have a child without the fathers consent. After all, he will be financially responsible for the child for 18 years plus - why should the father be landed with a child he doesn't want.
Also, is it fair to bring a child into the world when the father doesn't want it and the mother has a stronger than average chance of terminal illness? I know nothing in life is certain, but the odds certainly would be stacked against this child if it was born.
1. She's infertile because of the cancer treatment.
2. Whilst adoption is very worthy, its not even slightly the same.
Of course it is.
For the exact same reason Mrs Blood was allowed children, so should this woman.