What do you all think of this ?

[dawny0826]

Others could adopt her embryos...if she decides to only have several implanted.

She could also reserve them for possible future pregnancies.

 

[lunamoth]

I understand that and I agree to some extent, but I think some sensitivity is needed for the man because it was his sperm used for the eggs. If they broke up and he doesn't want her to use the eggs with his sperm (since it takes two to make a baby), I think he should have a say.

I see your point standing alone, and it does illuminate a bias I have against fathers who concieve children then abdicate responsibility for their welfare.

I'm with Dawny on this one. He should not be allowed to keep these embyos in limbo, or destroyed. If he wants out, then he should be out. If he does not want to be responsbile for child support this could be waived; I'm sure the mother at this point would happily agree. But, right now he is holding the embryos hostage, for what reason I can't understand at all. He's being a lout. Unfortuanately that's not against the law--just as bad as a dead-beat Dad.

lunamoth

 

[Buttercup]

I'm with Dawny on this one. He should not be allowed to keep these embyos in limbo, or destroyed. If he wants out, then he should be out. If he does not want to be responsbile for child support this could be waived; I'm sure the mother at this point would happily agree. But, right now he is holding the embryos hostage, for what reason I can't understand at all. He's being a lout. Unfortuanately that's not against the law--just as bad as a dead-beat Dad.

lunamoth

I still think the man should have his say in this whole thing as well. Since when are ONLY the woman's rights the ones that need to be considered?

 

[lunamoth]

Dawny....I am pro life as well and I understand your point. But, no one has answered the question I asked above. Let's say this woman only wants two kids but there are 6 embryos...what do you do with the others?

As I understand it in vitro is still tricky enough that most likley all six embryos would be needed to (hopefully) bring one baby to full term. I think often more than one embry is emplanted, which is why in vitro can result in multiple births. Usually only three rounds are done with (I'm not sure how many) more than one embryo at a time. After the couple has concieved all the children they wish to parent, the frozen embyos do go into limbo, but they can be "donated." I'm not sure how frequently this donation option is taken.

lunamoth

 

[dawny0826]

I still think the man should have his say in this whole thing as well. Since when are ONLY the woman's rights the ones that need to be considered?

Then his rights should have been legally established PRIOR to the creation of the embryos. These are frozen embryos...ready (if possible) to grow and thrive in the womb.

Seems to me that this entire process was lacking in the legal department.

 

[standing_alone]

ready (if possible) to grow and thrive in the womb.

Ready, perhaps, but they are not in the womb yet.

 

[dawny0826]

As I understand it in vitro is still tricky enough that most likley all six embryos would be needed to (hopefully) bring one baby to full term. I think often more than one embry is emplanted, which is why in vitro can result in multiple births. Usually only three rounds are done with (I'm not sure how many) more than one embryo at a time. After the couple has concieved all the children they wish to parent, the frozen embyos do go into limbo, but they can be "donated." I'm not sure how frequently this donation option is taken.

lunamoth

Exactly...which is why I can completely understand the desparation on her part. There's that sad possibility that after going through all six...she will not have a baby at all.

 

[lunamoth]

I still think the man should have his say in this whole thing as well. Since when are ONLY the woman's rights the ones that need to be considered?

He had his say when he particpated in the fertilization of the eggs. I consider it the same as if a baby is in the womb, waiting to be born. It's done. Why should he be able to hold this baby hostage just because it was artificially fertilized? In this case he is acting like a dead-beat dad, not fulfilling his responsibility to the baby.

lunamoth

 

[dawny0826]

Ready, perhaps, but they are not in the womb yet.

But they were created with that intent...

 

[michel]

These are embryos...frozen ..ALREADY FORMED...embryos. Conception has ocurred.

He was already "IN" for the conception process...if he doesn't want to parent...I think considering the circumstances...that should be legally arranged but SHE should ABSOLUTELY have the right to her embryos.



Not to say that she couldn't love an adopted child...but WHY should she adopt when she has the opportunity to possibly carry and deliver her OWN baby?

He was already "IN" for the conception process...if he doesn't want to parent...I think considering the circumstances...that should be legally arranged but SHE should ABSOLUTELY have the right to her embryos.

That's the way I see it. Having said that, I would think that the courts would have to make a ruling about the fiancé's parental duties. Would he have any rights ? I take it he wouldn't want any; he would surely be absolved of financial support.

What happens if at a later date, he decides he is interested in seeing the child ?

 

[Buttercup]

Others could adopt her embryos...if she decides to only have several implanted.

She could also reserve them for possible future pregnancies.

I am really not trying to pick on you....I am playing devils advocate here!

They are not just HER embryos to do with as she pleases...they are not in her body. They are frozen in a container. Shouldn't he get to decide if others can adopt them? I think the whole issue is extremely sad...I have to say I don't like the idea at all and if it were me I would adopt rather than go thru this whole process because I would not want 6 children, but could not bear to destroy any of them either. If they were destroyed, how would you know if they could have been viable?

I just don't think the entire process is up to her....at least legally. They should have put a clause in the legal wording at the clinic that if he wanted out at a later date then she had custody of the embryos. Perhaps this case will cause others to do that.

 

[dawny0826]

What happens if at a later date, he decides he is interested in seeing the child ?

If he chooses to sever all parental rights...which I think isn't unfeasible given the circumstances...he null and voids that right.

 

[standing_alone]

But they were created with that intent...

Yes, created with that intent, but the circumstances have also changed.

 

[dawny0826]

I am really not trying to pick on you....I am playing devils advocate here!

I know. I still love ya!:hug:

They are not just HER embryos to do with as she pleases...they are not in her body. They are frozen in a container. Shouldn't he get to decide if others can adopt them? I think the whole issue is extremely sad...I have to say I don't like the idea at all and if it were me I would adopt rather than go thru this whole process because I would not want 6 children, but could not bear to destroy any of them either. If they were destroyed, how would you know if they could have been viable?

They are 50% HERS. Had she been pregnant and he didn't want the baby but she did...can she be FORCED to abort?

I think the legal matters that are being discussed now should have been decided upon and signed upon PRIOR to the fertilization process.

It's HIGHLY unlikely that she will have 6 children. The sad fact, Buttercup, is that she'll be blessed if she's able to carry ONE baby full term. The viability of these embryos is incredibly uncertain...this is why they fertilize SO MANY. She could go on to have all six implanted and wind up with NO baby at all.

They all have the POTENTIAL for viability. They are frozen embryos.

I just don't think the entire process is up to her....at least legally. They should have put a clause in the legal wording at the clinic that if he wanted out at a later date then she had custody of the embryos. Perhaps this case will cause others to do that.

He doesn't want a child, obviously. She does. These embryos are biologically 50% HERS. So, because he simply decides NOW...after consenting to the creation of these embryos...that he doesn't want to be a father...this means that she CANNOT ATTEMPT...emphasis on the word ATTEMPT to have biological child(ren) of her own?

Hopefully this case will prompt detailed legal proceedings and consideration PRIOR to fertilization.

 

[lunamoth]

They are not just HER embryos to do with as she pleases

As I see it they are not hers or his. You are asking the wrong question here. There *is* a child or children. Who is willing to take responsibility for it/them and love it/them.

Like in the story about King Solomon: which parent is willing to let the child die rather than see the other have it.

lunamoth

 

[standing_alone]

Hopefully this case will prompt detailed legal proceedings and consideration PRIOR to fertilization.

Hopefully, and that's something that really needs to be done. Well, at least there's chance for better condideration now in the future because of this.

 

[dawny0826]

Yes, created with that intent, but the circumstances have also changed.

In my opinion...it doesn't matter. He was "IN" for the conception...

Change the circumstances...if she was pregant by HIM and at the time of conception, HE was 100% ready and hoping for a child...

Then...decides several weeks into gestation that he doesn't want to be a Dad anymore...could she be FORCED into aborting? Heck no.

 

[Buttercup]

It's HIGHLY unlikely that she will have 6 children. The sad fact, Buttercup, is that she'll be blessed if she's able to carry ONE baby full term. The viability of these embryos is incredibly uncertain...this is why they fertilize SO MANY. She could go on to have all six implanted and wind up with NO baby at all.

They all have the POTENTIAL for viability. They are frozen embryos.

I realize that the probablity of all of them growing into mature infants is pretty slim. But the question I have is a moral one and doesn't have everything to do with the OP. What would you do with the other embryos once you have had your limit of children? Science cannot know which ones are viable ahead of time. Do you donate all of them? Are there enough people that would want them?

Hopefully this case will prompt detailed legal proceedings and consideration PRIOR to fertilization.

I think everyone will agree with this point!

 

[standing_alone]

Then...decides several weeks into gestation that he doesn't want to be a Dad anymore...could she be FORCED into aborting? Heck no.

I agree that if the embryo was already in the woman, he couldn't force her to get an abortion (that decision then rests on the woman alone), but since the embryo is yet to be put into the woman, I think he should have some say.

 

[Buttercup]

As I see it they are not hers or his. You are asking the wrong question here. There *is* a child or children. Who is willing to take responsibility for it/them and love it/them.

Like in the story about King Solomon: which parent is willing to let the child die rather than see the other have it.

lunamoth

I don't have a disagreement with this statement and feel the same as well. BUT, it is in the legal wording thru the contract that makes these embryos a 'possession'. I think it needs to be changed obviously.