We are writing some music with the help of a professional band! Share some small positive stories from lockdown to contribute our song over on this thread!
Woman loses right to use embryos
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
Comments
- Report
0 ·- Report
0 ·She can always adopt. She'll be as valid and genuine a mother as if she gave birth herself.
- Report
0 ·- Report
0 ·- Report
0 ·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.
- Report
0 ·:thumb:
- Report
0 ·- Report
0 ·wasn't an option for her though
- Report
0 ·- Report
0 ·What would they have been?
- Report
0 ·However, I do feel very sorry for the woman.
- Report
0 ·- Report
0 ·- Report
0 ·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.
- Report
0 ·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?
- Report
0 ·- Report
0 ·- Report
0 ·- Report
0 ·- Report
0 ·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...
- Report
0 ·yup, what a cock!
please explain where you think the contruadiction is?
- Report
0 ·Often the best place to be
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...
- Report
0 ·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.
- Report
0 ·- Report
0 ·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...
- Report
0 ·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.
- Report
0 ·- Report
0 ·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.
- Report
0 ·- Report
0 ·