|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting article Warble
I am opposed to IVF and other similar forms of procreation, particularly anonymous egg or sperm donation, for many reasons, not the least of which is these kinds of quagmires.
First off, they both signed something saying the other can't have unilateral control over the frozen fetuses, and that they must be destroyed if there is a disagreement, then they both should abide by that agreement. What was the agreement? It should be abided by.
However, if the ruling is that the either party can have unilateral "ownership" of the fetuses with the right to bring them to term, and the bio-parent can decline to have anything to do with the child after it is born, then we're back at square one of my disagreement, that the CHILD did not agree to forfeit one parent. I don't think either parent should have the unilateral right to create a situation where the child has only one parent.
Forgetting for the moment that I don't agree with this situation existing in the first place (why didn't they just freeze eqq and sperm separately?) I believe the man has the right to decline the woman bringing the embryo in to a child. I would take exactly the same stand if the tables were turned, and HE wanted to bring the embryos to term against her wishes. Neither party should be able to do this.
But again, I find the whole deal wrong to begin with, on so many levels. What happense to the other fetuses? Probably discarded like trash. People are so selfish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forgetting for the moment that I don't agree with this situation existing in the first place (why didn't they just freeze eqq and sperm separately?) I believe the man has the right to decline the woman bringing the embryo in to a child.
The smart-ass answer is that they were in luuuvvvv. LOL!
Seriously, for me there is no problem with IVF because the embryo hasn’t fully formed into a fetus; only a relatively few cell divisions have taken place.
I personally view the mass as little more than a collection of a few undifferentiated cells. In other words, there are no definable organs or components that would define the embryo as being a fetus that possesses key human qualities.
For this reason, I have no ethical dilemma with disposing of the cells. Obviously, this is very different from disposing of a fully formed fetus that is viable outside of the womb through the use of medical technology.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You probably lose more cells from your shirt rubbing against your right pectoral in a tenth of a second than a hundred embryos combined. Until it's capable of survival outside the womb, it's abortable, in my opinion.
If a woman has a miscarriage, do they fish out all the goo and put it in a coffin? Until it's capable of sentience it might as well be an animal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 28, @04:56PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I am opposed to IVF and other similar forms of procreation, particularly anonymous egg or sperm donation, for many reasons, not the least of which is these kinds of quagmires.
Interesting comment. Have you already had all the children you want; or decided not to have children at all?
It would be interesting for you to tell my wife and two daughters that they had no right to be born because my wife's fallopian tubes were damaged when she was younger, and wouldn't allow eggs to pass through.
Nice judgementalism.
However, if the ruling is that the either party can have unilateral "ownership" of the fetuses with the right to bring them to term, and the bio-parent can decline to have anything to do with the child after it is born, then we're back at square one of my disagreement, that the CHILD did not agree to forfeit one parent. I don't think either parent should have the unilateral right to create a situation where the child has only one parent.
Excellent. Do you support or condemn the so called legal right women have to make a fatherless child by refusing to identify him?
Do you support or condemn the so called legal right women have to deliberately get pregnant, but say "I don't need a man in my life?"
Do you support or condemn the so called legal right women have to drive a man out of his child's life after divorce? Do you agree that to do so is one of the most hideous and unconscionable forms of child abuse imaginable? After all, shouldn't she put her personal feelings aside and do what is best for the CHILD instead of what is best for her?
And let's not give a bunch of weasel answers assuming facts not in evidence, or citing the rare instances where such a father is unfit or disinterested, as we speak of fit and concerned fathers here. Time for some unequivocation.
The correct answers are "Condemn, condemn, condemn, agree and agree."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm. I hear crickets. Well, what do you expect?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Bio-parent"
Great. How long do we thing it will take for this one to find its way into Webster?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yes I'm all for child abuse and fatherlessness. Where do I sign up?
You've obviously looked into your chrystal ball and read my mind. Why bother discussing things?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 29, @03:57PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
You could have said "I condemn the so called legal right women have to make a fatherless child by refusing to identify him."
You could have said "I condemn the so called legal right women have to deliberately get pregnant, and them saying "I don't need a man in my life" because what they want has to take second place to the good of the child."
You could have said "I condemn the so called legal right women have to drive a man out of his child's life after divorce. The child needs a father even if she no longer wants a husband.
You could have said "I agree that to do so is one of the most hideous and unconscionable forms of child abuse imaginable."
You could have said "She should put her personal feelings aside and do what is best for the CHILD instead of what she feels like doing."
But, alas, I notice you didn't. And it speaks volumes the way you evaded the direct question, and opportunity to give direct answers. And it begs the question of "Couldn't you bear to type it?"
My question is answered.
And let's not give a bunch of weasel answers assuming facts not in evidence, or citing the rare instances where such a father is unfit or disinterested, as we speak of fit and concerned fathers here. Time for some unequivocation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wrong. This is like me asking you "When did you stop beating your wife".
Your suppositions about me were embedded in the questions. In discussions, one is not obligated to defend positions he/she never took or opinions he/she never put forward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 29, @06:47PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
What utter twaddle. Whatever ideas I have about you, which are derived intuitively from the content of your postings, were given full chance to be put completely to the contrary.
Based on your postings in the past I fully assumed that you placed women's right's above men's rights, all other things being equal.
It's cerainly a no brainer. If a father is fit, capable, and willing, yea, eager to be a father to his child does he not have the right to do so?
It's a series of yes or no questions. Yes, I did remove the chance for you to use weasel words. Which gave you the full opportunity to say, "Yes, Mr Smarty Pants, I agree foursquare here, here, here, here, and here. So there. Your preconceptions about me are wrong. Would you like your Crow served before or after your humble pie?"
And the fact that you skipped that chance is proof positive to me that your sermonizing on what are the needs of the child is sanctimonious opportunism, and merely PC Newspeak code for "the convenience and wants of the mother."
A boatload of people condemn fatherlessness without having an iota of concern for the rights of men. One Carol Delany is a prime example of this, blaming men for fatherlessness, even when forced out of their children's lives through the writ of the court and at the point of the guns of law enforcement.
Methinks she doth protest too much, as the bard said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this case both parties have donated gametes. Obviously the woman's claim that she is pregnant with the frozen embryos is absurd -- what if they were implanted in a second woman? Would the first woman still be pregnant?
Another spin feminists are trying to put on the case is that it would be a form of discrimination against the disabled to prevent her doing what she wills with the embryos. If she weren't disabled they would be inside her body (actually they wouldn't exist) and she would be able to do what she wants with them without her ex's say so.
This is as silly as the first argument and moreover leads to C4M considerations -- isn't giving all the choice to the woman discrimination on the basis of sex?
The ex's position if she gets away with impregnating herself with their embryos is murky. In most jurisdictions I know of a man who is not the husband of a woman who conceives by artificial means using his gametes is deemed not to be the father and therefore not liable to pay CS. The specifics vary from place to place, so it is possible she could forum shop to find a court which would award her CS.
cheers,
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed. The very fact that this situation exists is a severe indictment of the status quo. Frankly I am not sure how much blame to attach to the guy in this instance - why did he agree to fertilise the eggs rather than leave them unfertilised? It was a foolish thing to do and I am sure it wont be long before some idiotic feminist says that the man has no say in what happens after fertilisation.
We just have to hope that the courts are not so stupid as to apply "woman's body, woman's choice" to something that has nothing to do with the woman's body. Unfortunately I don't have a lot of faith that the right thing will happen in this instance and we will see yet another fatherless child brought into the world. This will set an even more obvious precendent that men have no reproductive rights whatsoever. I really hope it doesn't happen...
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
