Quote:
I'm just saying that morally, I find the situation/him lacking.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Faith in Humanity drops another notch.
Faith in Humanity drops another notch.Follow
Morally on her part she should have his consent. It's not her baby it's their baby.
MentalFrog wrote:
Quote:
I'm just saying that morally, I find the situation/him lacking.
Normally I'd agree, but the whole "I can't make any more eggs" puts a very different spin on it.
Quote:
Normally I'd agree, but the whole "I can't make any more eggs" puts a very different spin on it
only if situational morality is applied, in which you adopt the position that there is no "right" or "wrong", in which case the world is a sadder place to live.
The possibility is possible that this dude is afraid of her having a cancer relapse and leaving him stuck with a real moral conundrum: do you sell the young one's panties to a Japanese businessman?
Edited, Tue Mar 7 13:36:51 2006 by Barkingturtle
Edited, Tue Mar 7 13:36:51 2006 by Barkingturtle
Althrun the Silent wrote:
MentalFrog wrote:
Quote:
I'm just saying that morally, I find the situation/him lacking.
Normally I'd agree, but the whole "I can't make any more eggs" puts a very different spin on it.
So don't put all your eggs in one basket. I don't think it changes anything. It sucks yeah but it takes two to make a baby like it or not.
It's sad that she put all her eggs in one basket, so to speak. It's sad that she, perhaps out of desperation, assumed that the two of them would make a family and stay together forever.
It is, however, an individual tragedy. Individual tragedies do not make great laws.
I feel sorry for her. Hell, I feel sorry for him, since he's being widely regarded as a heel for having made a perfectly reasonable decision about whether and when he wants to father children. None of which changes my mind: laws should not be based on individual tragedies, or changed on the basis of same.
It is, however, an individual tragedy. Individual tragedies do not make great laws.
I feel sorry for her. Hell, I feel sorry for him, since he's being widely regarded as a heel for having made a perfectly reasonable decision about whether and when he wants to father children. None of which changes my mind: laws should not be based on individual tragedies, or changed on the basis of same.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Quote:
Normally I'd agree, but the whole "I can't make any more eggs" puts a very different spin on it
only if situational morality is applied, in which you adopt the position that there is no "right" or "wrong", in which case the world is a sadder place to live.
The world isn't a sad miserable cesspool?????? [:boggle:]
@Mentalfrog:
Yes, it takes two to tango, but that includes him as well. She was daft in agreeing to all of them being fertilized, but I take exception to what people seem to be agreeing as ok that he can toss his **** around w/o any further responsibility.
He does have responsibility. That's why his consent is required before people go having his children.
Most of feel that responsibility is in making decisions whether or not he wants to father children with this woman. You feel it's in allowing her to have his children whether he wishes it or not.
Most of feel that responsibility is in making decisions whether or not he wants to father children with this woman. You feel it's in allowing her to have his children whether he wishes it or not.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
He does have responsibility. That's why his consent is required before people go having his children.
Most of feel that responsibility is in making decisions whether or not he wants to father children with this woman. You feel it's in allowing her to have his children whether he wishes it or not.
Most of feel that responsibility is in making decisions whether or not he wants to father children with this woman. You feel it's in allowing her to have his children whether he wishes it or not.
/nod
Which starts to take away his rights. It could be the last fertil human egg and he could be the last fertil male alive. It's still his right to refuse.
As opposed to her right to bear her own children.
Yes, exactly.
She is no longer fertile. She is requesting his help to bear children. After his refusal, she is attempting to coerce his help.
The courts agreed with him and with each other in saying that he cannot be so coerced.
She is no longer fertile. She is requesting his help to bear children. After his refusal, she is attempting to coerce his help.
The courts agreed with him and with each other in saying that he cannot be so coerced.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Quote:
As opposed to her right to bear her own children.
If you refuse to acknowledge that she bears the responsibility for a sh;tty decision, you will continue to be flumoxxed by the outcome, and no conversation with you regarding the situation will help that.
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Quote:
As opposed to her right to bear her own children.
If you refuse to acknowledge that she bears the responsibility for a sh;tty decision, you will continue to be flumoxxed by the outcome, and no conversation with you regarding the situation will help that.
I'm saying they both bear the responsibility for the outcome, not just her. I'm saying they both have rights in this situation, not just him.
No matter how you look at it, somebody's personal rights are being infringed, and I personally don't enjoy this being accepted as a status quo.
Althrun the Silent wrote:
As opposed to her right to bear her own children.
It's not her children it's their children. You're talking about two people not one person. If either one doesn't want to have the child you're going against that person's rights.
They are both people. Her rights are in no way more important than his. She has the right to bear children but he also has the right to produce children. Her rights are in no way greater than his. It doesn't matter what his reason is, financial or otherwise.
Althrun the Silent wrote:
As opposed to her right to bear her own children.
I suppose she might get a win should "Infertile British Woman v Gaia" find its day in court.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
I'm saying they both bear the responsibility for the outcome, not just her. I'm saying they both have rights in this situation, not just him.
No matter how you look at it, somebody's personal rights are being infringed, and I personally don't enjoy this being accepted as a status quo.
No matter how you look at it, somebody's personal rights are being infringed, and I personally don't enjoy this being accepted as a status quo.
Were it an egg, she would have a unilateral right to use it. It is not. When she made the decision to allow the egg to be fertilized, she GAVE UP the right to sole arbiter of the future of said organism. He is not taking anything from her she did not willingly relinquish. No one's rights are being infringed upon. Its a beautiful situation. She is pissed because she made a stupid decision. If she wanted to destroy them and he wanted them kept, she would not be able to do so. Would that be infringing on her rights as well? Two way street. She should have thought ahead a little.
She had me...
...And then she lost me:
Quote:
But on Tuesday judges backed the British law, effectively signaling the eventual destruction of the six embryos which held Evans's only hopes of having a child that is genetically hers.
...And then she lost me:
Quote:
She said her right to privacy and family life and the embryo's right to life were being violated by Johnston's decision to withdraw his permission for use of his sperm.
Agree, Flea. If she's going to take that tack, she'd best commit to bearing all six to term.
If women should not be forced to be baby machines, then neither should men, bottom line.
If women should not be forced to be baby machines, then neither should men, bottom line.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Makes me sad for her, but it's certainly not her last chance at having a baby with some of her genetic makeup. She could ask a sister or cousin to be a surrogate for her, or in any case if that is truly impossible,she could adopt. I do think that he had the right to withdraw consent, but it should cost him. At one point he gave consent and led her to believe that this would be her backup plan for procreation, so I do think he's liable for breach of contract. They are both responsible.
I do wonder, though, what was behind the decision to make a zygote instead of freezing her eggs. Perhaps they were more likely to survive to a full-term fetus?
I do wonder, though, what was behind the decision to make a zygote instead of freezing her eggs. Perhaps they were more likely to survive to a full-term fetus?
Quote:
I do wonder, though, what was behind the decision to make a zygote instead of freezing her eggs. Perhaps they were more likely to survive to a full-term fetus?
Probably. That's where all the research goes, at least - not so much in preserving unfertilized eggs, but zygotes.
That, or it was just SOP at that particular clinic. /shrug
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
On the plus side, she could use the breach-of-contract settlement to buy herself an Asian baby!
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Quote:
I'm saying they both bear the responsibility for the outcome, not just her. I'm saying they both have rights in this situation, not just him.
No matter how you look at it, somebody's personal rights are being infringed, and I personally don't enjoy this being accepted as a status quo.
No matter how you look at it, somebody's personal rights are being infringed, and I personally don't enjoy this being accepted as a status quo.
Were it an egg, she would have a unilateral right to use it. It is not. When she made the decision to allow the egg to be fertilized, she GAVE UP the right to sole arbiter of the future of said organism. He is not taking anything from her she did not willingly relinquish. No one's rights are being infringed upon. Its a beautiful situation. She is pissed because she made a stupid decision. If she wanted to destroy them and he wanted them kept, she would not be able to do so. Would that be infringing on her rights as well? Two way street. She should have thought ahead a little.
If she didn't want them born, but he did? I'd still hold to the idea of taking steps to disassociate themselves from the other and the dissenter not being liable or responsible for the child. Seems reasonable and rational in my apparently twisted little world.
Althrun the Silent wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Quote:
I'm saying they both bear the responsibility for the outcome, not just her. I'm saying they both have rights in this situation, not just him.
No matter how you look at it, somebody's personal rights are being infringed, and I personally don't enjoy this being accepted as a status quo.
No matter how you look at it, somebody's personal rights are being infringed, and I personally don't enjoy this being accepted as a status quo.
Were it an egg, she would have a unilateral right to use it. It is not. When she made the decision to allow the egg to be fertilized, she GAVE UP the right to sole arbiter of the future of said organism. He is not taking anything from her she did not willingly relinquish. No one's rights are being infringed upon. Its a beautiful situation. She is pissed because she made a stupid decision. If she wanted to destroy them and he wanted them kept, she would not be able to do so. Would that be infringing on her rights as well? Two way street. She should have thought ahead a little.
If she didn't want them born, but he did? I'd still hold to the idea of taking steps to disassociate themselves from the other and the dissenter not being liable or responsible for the child. Seems reasonable and rational in my apparently twisted little world.
Logical except for one thing: You're not creating a plant, asshat. Someday this zygote would become a baby, who would then become a woman or a man, and come looking for its birth-parent.
If you are a basically good person, perhaps this isn't the way you want to meet your firstborn. Signing away parental rights is just part of it, and by no means a fix to any of it.
Quote:
Logical except for one thing: You're not creating a plant, asshat. Someday this zygote would become a baby, who would then become a woman or a man, and come looking for its birth-parent.
If you are a basically good person, perhaps this isn't the way you want to meet your firstborn. Signing away parental rights is just part of it, and by no means a fix to any of it.
If you are a basically good person, perhaps this isn't the way you want to meet your firstborn. Signing away parental rights is just part of it, and by no means a fix to any of it.
So adoption doesn't work either in this respect?
I am reminded of a case (I believe it was in Sweden), wherein a man donated some sperm to a lesbian couple, waiving all parental rights to any child brought forth. The lesbians did the whole in-vitro thing, and had a child. Yay for them!
Then they split up.
The one who got custody of the child then sued the man who donated the sperm for child support. And won.
THAT is why the man in the OP's case has every right to refuse to allow the use of those embryos.
Then they split up.
The one who got custody of the child then sued the man who donated the sperm for child support. And won.
THAT is why the man in the OP's case has every right to refuse to allow the use of those embryos.
Recent Visitors: 403
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (403)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Faith in Humanity drops another notch.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC