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.
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
Seconded.
Kermit seems to spouting more angry hyperbole than usual these days.
she can use another womans eggs you know
Out of interest, which part of that child would be hers then?
Oh.
The bloke may be deeply unpleasant, but the story doesn't infer that he said withdrew consent to hurt her.
All my sympathies to her, though. No aspect of it is pleasant at all.
oh wow it will come from her still, she will bring it up, she is the mother
if i was ever unlucky enough to become infertile and wanted a kid, i wouldnt give a toss it isnt my genetic material, as i know my love would go into it, which is what matters really
having a child isn't a 'right' and it isnt just her embryo it is his as well and thus neither of them have final say to letting it go through
it's very sad for her im sure but that doesn't mean squat in terms of producing a child and she still has options, and if she doesn't take them up its her choice
i agree totally with the sentiment there icey, but the question both me and kermit and others are still concerned about, is that had this been a natural conception, he woudlnt be able to back out of it, once an egg is fertilised, should it not be up to the women to decide that which she wants to do with it
If it was inside her I would agree, but since it isn't hasn't he got as much 'right' to abort the child as she has.
But on a second note, I'm surprised no-one's mentioned the embryo's right to be born. I'm not saying you have to agree with it, but don't you think it should come up at some point? What i said above about the eggs having been fertilised to be irreversible was thought only from the owners' of the genetical material point of view, but I think it is a HUGE issue from the future child's point of view. IMO, the permanent change occured when the egg was fertilised because an embryo was created - at this moment a third's perspective should be taken into account.
rickramone said something interesting here: Personally, I don't agree with it cause the child would be denied the opportunity of even having a life, which I think he has a right to. Still, it's a good point, and at least someone thought about the issue from the child's perspective.
where does an embryo have a right to be allowed to grow, currently that isn't allowed through liquid nitrogen, so that 'right' as you put it is already being broken
thats why there is no such rights
"Won't somebody please think of the embryo."
Come on. You're pulling my plonker. It's not a baby. It has no such right. We'd best stop blokes from masturbating and couples from using their condoms because all those sperm are being denied the right to life when they get flushed down the khazi.
Yeeeesh.
But it wasn't, so there is no logical.
You might just as well say, if they'd had children before she developed cancer...
No. Why should it be?
Possibly because there is no such thing.
What about the right not to have been frozen in the first place, what about the right not to have been harvested? What about the abuse of rights which conception brings?
Anyway, that's a parallel debate, I'm also interested in what you think of the first part of my post.