Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
also known as extreme glassblowing? that's funny, you see, because… - don't let the bastards grind you down.
also known as extreme glassblowing?

that's funny, you see, because the green color is from uranium dioxide.

also...what do people think about frozen embryos? should a women be able to use them without the man's consent? you can't in britain...it takes both parents consent to sue the embryo, and the women in this case want to use them embryos after they've split from their partners.

i say huzzah to that.
10 comments or Leave a comment
wiffler From: wiffler Date: October 1st, 2003 12:38 pm (UTC) (Link)
To freeze an embryo that I was part of making, you need my consent, or I'll kill someone. Or get really mad. Oh, what's the big deal, freeze away without my consent - as long as I'm not responsible later on.

Now...If a women freezes an embryo and has the kid later (you can do this?), is the man responsible for child support if he refuses to give it? I surely hope he's not responsible if he doesn't know his embryo has been frozen for future use.
taumeson From: taumeson Date: October 1st, 2003 01:18 pm (UTC) (Link)
yeah, if the embryo is brought to term, the genetic father owes.
christy_p From: christy_p Date: October 1st, 2003 01:15 pm (UTC) (Link)
should a woman be able to use them, without his consent?

From: ex_clevergir259 Date: October 1st, 2003 01:25 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'm kind of torn on the whole embryo issue.

On one hand, both the parents originally consented to freeze the embryos. The women made decisions about their health care (radiation treatments that left them infertile) because they thought that they would be able to use the embryos after they recovered. I get the feeling that destroying the mothers' only hope for a biological child is just one more way for their partners to hurt them.

On the other, what if the fathers decided to use the embryos with the new wife or girlfriend? Would the mothers be able to block this use of their embryos?

I suppose that if you take child support out of the equation, it's less complicated.

Interestingly enough, my (male) cubicle-mate said that, not only should the mothers be able to implant the embryos, but the fathers should pay child support and have the option of being involved in the children's lives. He draws a parallel to abortion laws. Both parents agreed to conceive and freeze the embryos. If these father can order an embryo destroyed, why can't a father of a naturally-conceived embryo force his partner to undergo abortion?
taumeson From: taumeson Date: October 2nd, 2003 08:04 am (UTC) (Link)
the law is clear that it takes both parents to unfreeze these embryos. is your friend saying that the law should be changed?

he's gotta remember that these would-be fathers would NOT want to have children with these women now. they aren't having sex with them, so there's no chance of it happening naturally (even if that was an option)....so why force them to be parents now? considering that they're not currently, and all.
From: ex_clevergir259 Date: October 2nd, 2003 08:54 am (UTC) (Link)
You have to understnad that Colin is a "life-begins-at-conception" sort of guy. In his estimation, this situation is no different than that of a man who impregnates his wife and leaves before the baby was born. In both situations, the men were presumably enthusiastic participants in the conception, and now find themselves unwilling to have children with these women. If you take this tack, then destroying the embryos against the woman's will is akin to forcing her to have an abortion, which Colin is firmly against.

I'm not 100% convinced, but I can certainly see where he's coming from. How would you feel if the fathers were granted the same legal rights as sperm donors? Sperm donors are not held legally or financially responsible for any children conceived with their donations.
christy_p From: christy_p Date: October 2nd, 2003 09:15 am (UTC) (Link)
i had considered the perm donation thoughts also. i mean, men who donate sperm do so with anonymity and knowing they will not know the ladies who might use it and would not know the children conceived with their sperm. Surely this is a major difference isn't it?!?
From: ex_clevergir259 Date: October 2nd, 2003 10:59 am (UTC) (Link)
If you were to set up an agreement wherein the father gives up all rights to visitation in exchange for child support, it's essentially the same thing, isn't it? No one would force him to acknowledge, spend time with, or support the child. You could further ensure anonymity by not listing the bio-dad on the birth certificate, if he prefers. Then the only difference is that he knows that his former wife was the recipient. This would only be a problem if the father were particularly vindictive; that is, if he were blocking the implantation purely to deny his ex-wife the chance to ever have biological children.

You could turn it around, too. If the mother was seeking to block the father from using the embryos, she could be considered an egg donor.

Personally, if I were these women, I'd be looking into adoption at this point. I understand, though, that infertile people and cancer survivors might have a little more invested in the pregnancy experience than I do right now.
christy_p From: christy_p Date: October 2nd, 2003 12:18 pm (UTC) (Link)
they should make the "current status" and "future status" of the embryo's part of the divorce settlement.
From: ex_clevergir259 Date: October 3rd, 2003 09:30 am (UTC) (Link)
Amen to that!
10 comments or Leave a comment