Woman loses final embryo appeal - Page 4

accymel · 12-04-2007, 13:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tinkerbelle

No, but maybe it was her obsessive need for a child that drove them apart.

U been watching too much eastenders with that dr may

Tinkerbelle · 12-04-2007, 13:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by accymel

U been watching too much eastenders with that dr may

Yup ........

If she wants kids that bad she can have mine

..... she'd soon bring them back though

accymel · 12-04-2007, 13:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tinkerbelle

Yup ........

If she wants kids that bad she can have mine

..... she'd soon bring them back though

she can have my eldest an all, mind u think she will win May on the moody throwing stuff stomping paddy atm

Gayle · 12-04-2007, 13:46

Whilst I think it's incredibly sad that this woman can't have a child perhaps we should turn the argument on its head for a moment.

If the ownership of the fertilised eggs were shared between the two of them, neither one should be able to have claim to them - just because they're her eggs doesn't make them her fertilised eggs. If the bloke has an accident in the future whereby it damages his 'tackle' and he's only firing blanks - should he be allowed to use the fertilised eggs with a new partner, after all they're partly his. The answer of course, is no and there would be outrage if it was suggested but technically, he would have the same claim to them as this woman does.

yerself · 12-04-2007, 13:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by panther

all she wanted was to be a mother, whats wrong with that.

Nothing. He doesn't want her to be the mother of his child. What's wrong with that?

katex · 12-04-2007, 15:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

Whilst I think it's incredibly sad that this woman can't have a child perhaps we should turn the argument on its head for a moment.

If the ownership of the fertilised eggs were shared between the two of them, neither one should be able to have claim to them - just because they're her eggs doesn't make them her fertilised eggs. If the bloke has an accident in the future whereby it damages his 'tackle' and he's only firing blanks - should he be allowed to use the fertilised eggs with a new partner, after all they're partly his. The answer of course, is no and there would be outrage if it was suggested but technically, he would have the same claim to them as this woman does.

You can't say for sure that the answer would definitely be 'No' Gayle, he would have to apply to the European Courts like she did I suppose, and we don't know how they would view it.

And Riq don't think it is very gentlemanly of you to mark down the post by Flash #35 as 'ridiculous' just because she had an opposite view to yourself.
Calling someone else's point of view as this or rubbish is the first rule of etiquette in a debate, and this is an interesting subject.

Never quite sure about the cliche that it isn't a woman's right to have children, just a privilege ... maybe I misunderstand it. If medical science just considered it a privilege, then feel there would be lots of women who wouldn't have had the children they so desired.

lettie · 12-04-2007, 16:15

Medical science has got a lot to answer for. Has it created a way to help infertile couples or has it created a monster????

The law tries desperately to keep up with medical science, as with each new discovery and procedure there has to be a law to ensure that there is no exploitation of the procedure. It is an extremely fine line that the legal, ethical and medical minds are treading in order to create legislation to cover all eventualities without offence.

Eg. the catholic faith believe that a fertilised egg is a life, yet as a non-catholic, I would personally not see a fertilised egg in that way. In this country a fetus, even at full term, has no rights in law until it is born and becomes a person. Yet in the USA a fetus has full rights and pregnant women can be imprisoned for damaging their fetus by drug misuse etc. in certain states.

Therefore, there is major disagreement worldwide about what constitutes a life and fertility laws have to try to consider and protect the potential for life. We only have to consider the differing opinions of the members on this site to see what a nightmare of a job it must be to make this legislation.

What many hospitals are also now seeing are couples who have become pregnant using fertility treatments, IVF, donor eggs, donor sperm etc. Many of these couples have medical problems which prevented natural conception, therefore, some of the women can have extremely dangerous, life threatening conditions when pregnant. We are seeing more and more women needing high dependency and intensive care during pregnancy and the maternal death rate has risen in the last 3 years.

It's a bit old fashioned but a long retired midwife, who was a mentor of mine, always said that we were opening a can of worms with fertility treatment. She reckoned that if a woman can't get pregnant naturally then there is a reason for it....... Even though I have seen a lot of sucessful pregnancies through fertility treatment, when I see the ones who become desperately ill, I think that maybe my old mentor had a point.

panther · 12-04-2007, 17:42

she's with someone else and hes single, wonder if thats why he didnt allow it

when i think about it if it was the other way round i suppose i would tell my ex to bog off too, after 5 years it is a long time.
hey well......

WillowTheWhisp · 12-04-2007, 18:33

The thing is this woman would have been able to have a child naturally but then she was diagnosed with cancer and this idea of fertilising embryos for implanting later was put forward as a way of her getting round losing her fertility due to the treatment for the cancer. Some women have chosen to become pregnant first, risk their own life and then undergo treatment after the birth.

She didn't need a sperm donor because she had a partner and was in what she thought was a permanent relationship at the time. He must have thought so too to have agreed to it then. She had the hope of a child to look forward to once she was over her treatment. Now she has lot that and I still see it as a cruel blow - like the woman who wanted to be inseminated with the sperm of her dead partner and was denied because he wasn't alive to agree to it.

katex · 12-04-2007, 18:41

I suppose too Willow, that at the time this lady was very much in love with this man, and he with her obviously. She would never have taken into consideration the possibility that they would ever split, and that he would renade on his agreement in the future, no matter what type of counselling they originally had.

Love is blind, is it not ?

WillowTheWhisp · 12-04-2007, 18:51

How true, and as already said we don't know what caused them to split or what is behind his refusal now.

katex · 12-04-2007, 19:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

How true, and as already said we don't know what caused them to split or what is behind his refusal now.

Sure this would not be much of a consideration for the courts, unless he could put forward some sort of argument that she would not be a fit mother .. and that would have to be very strong and proven.

Why they split, I should imagine, would be irrelevant.