Woman loses right to use embryos

Former Member · April 2007

Has this been done? :chin:

Anyway, thoughts?

Right decision for me.

Former Member · April 2007

Legally, I agree with the decision. But I still feel very sad for her.

Former Member · April 2007

I feel sorry for her because now she can't become a mother. However, I think the right decision was made.

Former Member · April 2007

I feel sorry for the woman, but life can't always be fair to everyone at the same time. It was the right decision to make.

She can always adopt. She'll be as valid and genuine a mother as if she gave birth herself.

Former Member · April 2007

I agree with everyone. He shouldn't have to become a father against his will because she wants to be a mum. I do feel for her though, but you can't always have your way just because life has been unfair to you.

Former Member · April 2007

Awful case her lawyer made. She argued (in a country where abortion is legal) that the embryos have a right to life because thery've already been concieved.

Former Member · April 2007

I'm With Stupid wrote: »

Awful case her lawyer made. She argued (in a country where abortion is legal) that the embryos have a right to life because thery've already been concieved.

Yeah, poor argument and doesn't take into account where conception doesn't = pregnancy e.g. where some contraceptive methods prevent implantation but might not prevent conception, or couples trying to concieve but don't realise that fertilisation occurred and pregnancy didn't. Don't really want to think of the legal repercussions of that if she was successful.

Former Member · April 2007

Yeah i agree with the decision, although I do feel sorry for the woman in this case.

:thumb:

Former Member · April 2007

Sad case, but the right decision.

Former Member · April 2007

J wrote: »

Could have just stuck by mother nature.

wasn't an option for her though

Former Member · April 2007

i really feel for the poor woman.:crying: .not sure how i feel about the decision really..yes the man has a right to say he dosnt want to become a father ,but what if they had gone ahead ,then split up after,there would be a baby involved then.this was her only chance to become a mum...

Former Member · April 2007

go_away wrote: »

Don't really want to think of the legal repercussions of that if she was successful.

What would they have been?

Former Member · April 2007

The law is the law so yes, I agree with the decision that was made.

However, I do feel very sorry for the woman.

Former Member · April 2007

I'm glad the right decision was made, if I was the bloke I certainly wouldn't want an ex-partner having my child, would he have been made to support it if the case was in her favour I wonder?

Former Member · April 2007

agree- right decision, feel a bit sorry for the woman though.

Former Member · April 2007

Whowhere wrote: »

I'm glad the right decision was made, if I was the bloke I certainly wouldn't want an ex-partner having my child, would he have been made to support it if the case was in her favour I wonder?

I think it probably would've been subject to some sort of agreement about that. Be equally, how many times have existing contracts been invalidated in the future? I mean look at pre-nups in this country, and weren't they on about letting children of sperm donors access to the identity of their children? Personally I wouldn't want to risk of a court overruling the contract in the future and being left with a hefty child support bill stretching back 15 years or something.

Former Member · April 2007

Yep, I'm with everyone else, legally the right decision was made, but feel awful for her

I am intrigued though, why did she not just have eggs frozen, why did she have embryos frozen? Was there some sort of biological benefit to having embryos frozen instead of eggs?

Former Member · April 2007

I'd guess that there is an advantage as with embryos there is def a successful fertilisation, whereas if you just freeze eggs you'd be gutted if they all ran out but none got fertilised.

Former Member · April 2007

You have more of a chance of successfully freezing embryos than eggs. Due to the content of eggs, they're more likely to be damaged by water crystals in the freezing/defrosting process than sperm or embryos are.

Former Member · April 2007

I feel sad for her and i think her ex should have been more sympathetic as he didn't have to have anything to do with the child however if the child grew up naturually it would probably want something to do with their father and it wouldn't have been fair on the ex to be a father to a child he didn't want and didn't technically produe ''naturally''.

Former Member · April 2007

Yeah I agree with the general opinion on here. Devastating for her, but the choice was the right one.

Former Member · April 2007

Looks like a minority of one.

I think that the decision was right in law, but I also think that law is an ass. Add to that I think that Howard Johnston is a class-a cunt of the highest order. Not satisfied with, apparently, running off with his secretary whilst his wife under went treatment for cancer, he then deprives her of the chance to be a mother. Yeah, real man that one

Personally I believe that he gave consent to become a father the moment that his sperm fertilised the egg.

Interesting that we have people here who believe in "right to choose" without father's permission but not right to implant an egg...

Former Member · April 2007

Man Of Kent wrote: »

Add to that I think that Howard Johnston is a class-a cunt of the highest order. Not satisfied with, apparently, running off with his secretary whilst his wife under went treatment for cancer, he then deprives her of the chance to be a mother. Yeah, real man that one

yup, what a cock!

Man Of Kent wrote: »

Personally I believe that he gave consent to become a father the moment that his sperm fertilised the egg.

Interesting that we have people here who believe in "right to choose" without father's permission but not right to implant an egg...

please explain where you think the contruadiction is?

Former Member · April 2007

Man Of Kent wrote: »

Looks like a minority of one.

Often the best place to be

I think that the decision was right in law, but I also think that law is an ass. Add to that I think that Howard Johnston is a class-a cunt of the highest order. Not satisfied with, apparently, running off with his secretary whilst his wife under went treatment for cancer, he then deprives her of the chance to be a mother. Yeah, real man that one

Personally I believe that he gave consent to become a father the moment that his sperm fertilised the egg.

Interesting that we have people here who believe in "right to choose" without father's permission but not right to implant an egg

I agree the man's a cunt, but as you say its the right decision in law. And that's what's got to count. Otherwise we starting getting decisions on what an individual doctor feels is right. Which is fine if you agree with him and less fine if you don't...

Former Member · April 2007

katralla wrote: »

please explain where you think the contruadiction is?

That he can choose when to be a father when a fertilised egg is artificially implanted but not when it happens naturally. If conception had been "natural" then it would have been entirely her choice if pregnancy went ahead.

Former Member · April 2007

I see them as seperate issues as one instance is when pregnancy has occured, in the woman's body, is woman's choice, and t'other isn't.

Former Member · April 2007

Flashman's Ghost wrote: »

I agree the man's a cunt, but as you say its the right decision in law. And that's what's got to count. Otherwise we starting getting decisions on what an individual doctor feels is right. Which is fine if you agree with him and less fine if you don't...

Hence why I said the law is an ass and not the decision.

Johnston gave consent for fertilisation and storage. For me that was consent to be a father. The law says that he must consent at each stage and I don't think that is right.

Her case was flawed and it was right that she lost. To suggest that the embryo had "right to life" is laughable and would set an unacceptable precedence in that she would then legally have been required to have all six implanted even if each was successful...

Former Member · April 2007

katralla wrote: »

I see them as seperate issues as one instance is when pregnancy has occured, in the woman's body, is woman's choice, and t'other isn't.

Yeah, I can see the differences, i.e. that a pregnancy would be fact and not "possibility, don't think that I can't. I just also see the irony of his right to choose in one circumstance being supported here but not in another.

In either event it is she who would have to carry and support the child.

Former Member · April 2007

Was she expecting him to play any part in the child/s life/s? Or did she just want them implanted and go on her way?

Former Member · April 2007

She gave him the option of zero strings. No financial support and no expectation of involvement in the child's life.

She just wanted the chance to have a child which was biologically hers. In light of the circumstances surrounding her infertility and the options she had available at the time I really don't think that it was too much to ask.

Former Member · April 2007

I can see both sides, because he didn't want to be a father anymore gives him the right to destroy the embryos. But i suppose it was the thought of knowing that you're the father to a child somewhere that you're never going to know. I think it depends how much you can separate emotions from genetics. Technically the child will only have some of his genes, but it depends how you see it. But do women actually have the 'right' to be a mother?

Woman loses right to use embryos

Comments