Natalie Evans - Page 2

katex · 08-03-2006, 22:51

?????????????????? Yeh, but this is all by agreement or fury Jambut. but what do you think the court judgement would be ? We all agree that it would be foolish to fertilise you current females eggs, etc., and you are saying that the egg owner would have the say, but Natalie did not, did she ?

Don't think you are following the twist here.

jambutty · 08-03-2006, 23:18

I think that the court judgement would be that if the egg owner did not want to carry the embryo to term herself the man could not force her to do so. Nor could he force her to donate her impregnated egg to another woman to bring it to term.

However if the egg owner declared that she would donate the impregnated egg to another woman AND the man agreed this would be allowed with various safeguards in place.

garinda · 08-03-2006, 23:21

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

katex · 08-03-2006, 23:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

. Nor could he force her to donate her impregnated egg to another woman to bring it to term.

.

Would be interesting to find out though, eh ? if the law fell more favourably on the male side of things.

Garinda: I think the little lion came first so that it could stamp the egg.

SPUGGIE J · 09-03-2006, 11:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by katex

Would be interesting to find out though, eh ? if the law fell more favourably on the male side of things

There should be no diference nor should the law be able to say yes to a man. Regardless of the rights or wrongs it is a human life we are talking about not who gets the cat or dog. As I said earlier a child needs 2 loving parents and not all the agro that goes with it. There are enough children brought into the world to be loved by only 1 parent and I am not infering that it is women only as men on occaision find themselves in the same prediciment. It is the human rights of the child to be that need to be considered not one or other of the parents.

jambutty · 09-03-2006, 12:00

We shall never know katex until it is tested in court but I think that you will find that the Law Lords will not favour one party over the other just because of their sex.

It is grossly unreasonable for a man to be forced into fatherhood against his wishes as much as it is grossly unreasonable to force a women to carry an embryo to term or donate the embryo to another if she does not want to. If a couple cannot agree then they must agree to disagree.

What the Law should be looking at is the storing of embryos to avoid such problems from happening without concrete safeguards.

chav1 · 09-03-2006, 14:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

We shall never know katex until it is tested in court but I think that you will find that the Law Lords will not favour one party over the other just because of their sex.

have to disagree with you on that one , every day men get screwed out of seeing , getting custordy of their children simply because the mother is deemed the best parent automaticly

jambutty · 09-03-2006, 18:27

We were talking in the context of embryos chav1.

However in custody cases you are quite correct that the mother usually gets custody even if she were the guilty part responsible for the break up of the union.

The whole question of child custody is not about him or her but about what is best for the children. And in general the best qualified person to look after children, particularly those under 10, is the mother. Women are natural mothers and nurses whereas men have to learn the art. Of course there will always be exceptions but they only serve to prove the rule as it were.

But all this is off topic.

lettie · 09-03-2006, 20:48

Although I feel very sorry for Natalie Evans, I agree completely with the verdict. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act has had a few updates as these problems arise, but this area of science never fails to throw up moral dilemmas.

Madhatter · 12-03-2006, 03:35

Still cant help thinking this guy is only doing this as a revenge thing. I'd be interested to know his reasons for withdrawing his consent.
I've thought about this a lot and I think she should be allowed to go ahead but he shouldn't be held responsible under the circumstances for the child, he should be treated like a sperm donor.
The point is to this is that he's already given his consent, he told her there was no reason to freeze her eggs, because he wanted the child. Based on that advise and him giving consent and going ahead to the point of the emryos being frozen, she didn't bother to safe guard herself any and chances of having children any further. by withdrawing his consent he's taken the last chance of her having children away. She could have had her eggs frozen but didn't because he said she didn't need to, and by him giving his permission she thought she didn't need to.

The only problem is from the childs point of view, because of the way he's acted the child would now never have a normal life if it did go ahead, it would probably have problems of insecurity.

Gayle · 12-03-2006, 11:56

I am completely torn on this - my view changes with almost every post. It must have been a horrendous decision for the judges to make - deny a woman the chance to have her own child or allow the man to avoid parenting a child he didn't want.

katex · 12-03-2006, 12:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

I am completely torn on this - my view changes with almost every post. It must have been a horrendous decision for the judges to make - deny a woman the chance to have her own child or allow the man to avoid parenting a child he didn't want.

Yeh, know what you mean Gayle, however, seems less than 10% chance of this working anyway. Ok, so some chance, but how awful to think that the father would be praying would not work and celebrate even if it did and she had a miscarriage. Also, half the country, because of the publicity, could feel this way. That would be emotionally hard to take don't you think. ?

Seems she now has a new man in her life and think that she could now take the approach of accepting a donor egg with sperm from her new man,'cause if she really loves this man, it's a bit like 'I wanna' have your baby' cliche and great pleasure should be gained from this attitude.

Easy for us to talk though who have been blessed with children.

Madhatter · 12-03-2006, 15:06

Quote:

allow the man to avoid parenting a child he didn't want.

He did want it though didn't he. He's already agreed, the eggs are fertilised. He's now withdrawn his consent which is comparable to an abortion.
Would the courts side with a father that wants an abortion if the mother wanted to keep the child?.