[fluff]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4283724.stm

Basically: Woman has cancer, she and hubby create embryos and have them frozen, she has successful cancer treatment which leaves her sterile, couple split, he withdraws his persmission to use embryos, she wants kids.

Questions:

Should she be able to use the embryos?

Should they be destroyed?

Should they have been created in the first place?

Why did George W Bush allow this to happen?

 

[N8 v2.0]

:crickets:​

 

[Westy]

If she is hot I'll hit it.

There seems to be no clear argument unless you look at it from property standpoint. They each get half of the embryos, and I don't mean bisecting them. People really should consider such things before creating embryos, just irresponsible not to, whatever Dr or clinic that provides such services should make them plan for such things..

Edit: Saw the pic, I won't hit it but Stosh probably would.

 

[reflux]

There seems to be no clear argument unless you look at it from property standpoint. They each get half of the embryos, and I don't mean bisecting them. People really should consider such things before creating embryos, just irresponsible not to, whatever Dr or clinic that provides such services should make them plan for such things..

True, but if I were arguing for the lady to keep the embryos, I would look at it from the perspective that his seed was a gift to her. A complete gift is irrevocable and may be used however the giftee(?) desires. Tough call regardless of how you look at it.

 

[fluff]

:crickets:​

Sssh, N8's thinking...

 

[MTB_Rob_NC]

:crickets:

Sssh, N8's thinking...

bahahaha

 

[valve bouncer]

True, but if I were arguing for the lady to keep the embryos, I would look at it from the perspective that his seed was a gift to her. A complete gift is irrevocable and may be used however the giftee(?) desires. Tough call regardless of how you look at it.

Can't agree with that one mate. That's like saying I'll buy you a house but you have to build it by yourself. Nevertheless I have to wonder why she wants to have this baby when it seems obvious the father is not going to play a realistic part in the kids life.

 

[DRB]

Can't agree with that one mate. That's like saying I'll buy you a house but you have to build it by yourself. Nevertheless I have to wonder why she wants to have this baby when it seems obvious the father is not going to play a realistic part in the kids life.

It says embryos and nothing about eggs. If she had no remaining eggs than those embryos might be her only chance at having naturally born children. I don't even know if you can store eggs.

 

[valve bouncer]

It says embryos and nothing about eggs. If she had no remaining eggs than those embryos might be her only chance at having naturally born children. I don't even know if you can store eggs.

Yeah, point. Missed the sterile part. I would guess that sterile means she's not producing eggs. Mmmm....just googled it. Seems a hysterectomy is the main treatment for ovarian cancer which of course means you can't get pregnant. But in this case conception has already occurred. Can you carry a baby to term if it is planted in your womb after a hysterectomy?

 

[DRB]

Yeah, point. Missed the sterile part. I would guess that sterile means she's not producing eggs. Mmmm....just googled it. Seems a hysterectomy is the main treatment for ovarian cancer which of course means you can't get pregnant. But in this case conception has already occurred. Can you carry a baby to term if it is planted in your womb after a hysterectomy?

A hysterectomy is the removal the womb (uterus) , so the answer is no. I'm not sure but I think the women in question just had her ovaries removed and not a hysterectomy.

 

[valve bouncer]

A hysterectomy is the removal the womb (uterus) , so the answer is no. I'm not sure but I think the women in question just had her ovaries removed and not a hysterectomy.

Just did some more googling DRB, seems that it is possible for her to carry the baby to term even if she did have a hysterectomy.
Interesting titbit I found. Ovarian cancer is almost uniformly fatal.

 

[DRB]

Just did some more googling DRB, seems that it is possible for her to carry the baby to term even if she did have a hysterectomy.
Interesting titbit I found. Ovarian cancer is almost uniformly fatal.

Really? I didn't know that.

Yeah ovarian cancer is pretty bad.

 

[Damn True]

Ovarian cancer unless caught VERY early is almost always fatal.

I don't know if the result of such treatment results in a lack of harvestable eggs.

If she is unable to have eggs removed for implantation I would think that there would be nothing wrong with her using the previously stored embryos.

The larger moral question though is should the father bear responsibility for the care of the child?

One might opine that he agreed to the consequences of his actions in donating the semen for fertilization prior to their estrangement and therefore must continue to bear responsibility. After all, if the cancer deal had not gone down and she had become pregnant by normal means then they split he would still bear responsibility.

 

[beestiboy]

I didnt read article yet, but why embryos. Arent they able store eggs, I mean sperm is good for days once frozen. Why go to the trouble of fertilizing? Seems to me that since they divorced he should be released of financial responsibility. Had she not survived, im sure he would be allowed to find a surogate mother to have the kid/host the embryo.

Very interesting argument though. This really doesnt fit into any ideology or mold.

 

[valve bouncer]

I didnt read article yet, but why embryos. Arent they able store eggs, I mean sperm is good for days once frozen. Why go to the trouble of fertilizing? Seems to me that since they divorced he should be released of financial responsibility. Had she not survived, im sure he would be allowed to find a surogate mother to have the kid/host the embryo.

Very interesting argument though. This really doesnt fit into any ideology or mold.

As we was googling this last night I found that eggs can be frozen but the success rate for pregnancies was not high.
As a bit of an aside, does the Christian right oppose the use of reproductive technology such as IVF?

 

[Damn True]

As we was googling this last night I found that eggs can be frozen but the success rate for pregnancies was not high.
As a bit of an aside, does the Christian right oppose the use of reproductive technology such as IVF?

I have never heard anyone speak out against the use of such technologies. But I suppose there could be some wacko, somewhere that might.

I have been told, though I cannot substantiate it, that there are a number of Jewish sects, though not all, that frown upon it.

IMO, if it dosen't happen by natural means, it isn't supposed to happen. My ex-wife and I tried to have a baby for about 3 years and were not able to get her pregnant (though we tried a lot ). I was tested and my swimmers were perfectly viable in number and motility and there was nothing "wrong" with her gear either. In fact she has since re-married and had two kids. What I take from that is that it was not meant to be. Seeing as our relationship went south I guess the big guy made the right call. I am glad I didn't put a kid through our divorce.

 

[DRB]

IMO, if it dosen't happen by natural means, it isn't supposed to happen. My ex-wife and I tried to have a baby for about 3 years and were not able to get her pregnant (though we tried a lot ). I was tested and my swimmers were perfectly viable in number and motility and there was nothing "wrong" with her gear either. In fact she has since re-married and had two kids. What I take from that is that it was not meant to be. Seeing as our relationship went south I guess the big guy made the right call. I am glad I didn't put a kid through our divorce.

So folks that can't have kids naturally should just hang it up? I'm sure my adopted daughter would be appreciative of that.

 

[Reactor]

It's a red herring. The real issue is if the couple agreed to have and support children by creating the embryos. Usually they make quite a few embryos and most aren't used.

If you flip the case upside down, does the husband have the right to have he embryos implanted in a surrogate to have children if the wife objects to having children? Most people would say no.

I think the fertilized embryos are a hedge against the possibility they might want to have children, not a promise to have children. Nobody should be forced to have children against their will. If the man in this case doesn't want them used they shouldn't be used, and under UK law they can't be.

 

[fluff]

It's a red herring. The real issue is if the couple agreed to have and support children by creating the embryos. Usually they make quite a few embryos and most aren't used.

If you flip the case upside down, does the husband have the right to have he embryos implanted in a surrogate to have children if the wife objects to having children? Most people would say no.

I think the fertilized embryos are a hedge against the possibility they might want to have children, not a promise to have children. Nobody should be forced to have children against their will. If the man in this case doesn't want them used they shouldn't be used, and under UK law they can't be.

The only part you haven't covered in an otherwise well structured post is that he is effectively denying her the chance to have kids of her own as there is no other way for her to conceive. That is what makes it a very sad and complicated matter IMO.

 

[Damn True]

So folks that can't have kids naturally should just hang it up? I'm sure my adopted daughter would be appreciative of that.

You will notice that I led the comment with "IMO" by that I meant that I feel that in MY situation I would not have done anything other than what I did. I never said anyone else should do the same. If my situation were different I might have done something different. I gave a lot of thought, prayer and introspection to the situation and the decision I was led to was not to go any further toward achieving pregnancy.

I think your adoption is wonderful and appreciate your doing so. I wish it were easier for people in this country to adopt.

 

[DRB]

You will notice that I led the comment with "IMO" by that I meant that I feel that in MY situation I would not have done anything other than what I did. I never said anyone else should do the same. If my situation were different I might have done something different. I gave a lot of thought, prayer and introspection to the situation and the decision I was led to was not to go any further toward achieving pregnancy.

I think your adoption is wonderful and appreciate your doing so. I wish it were easier for people in this country to adopt.

Gotcha.

 

[Reactor]

The only part you haven't covered in an otherwise well structured post is that he is effectively denying her the chance to have kids of her own as there is no other way for her to conceive. That is what makes it a very sad and complicated matter IMO.

You're right..especially about it being a sad situation. Sometimes there isn't a good "right" answer, there are only varying degrees of wrongness. Is it more wrong to force someone to have a child they don't want or to keep someone from having a child they do want?

Personally, if I were the guy, I'd agree to let her try to use the embryos and I'd give up my parental rights, if she would assume all support and it wouldn't futher entangle me with my ex-wife. I have to wonder though, if she has some other motivation in addition to being a mother.