Sofia Vergara Is being sued by her own embryos

[Soubriquet]

link

I can't even summon the words to describe how bonkers this is

What an utter dick.

I think mandate in that context just means permit implantation in a willing surrogate.

Yes, that's surely the only way they could do it. It would only be "permission to use in a surrogate" rather than a "right to use in a surrogate"

and good luck with trying to explain it nicely to any eventual offspring.

Who creates a trust fund for frozen embryos?

It may be that she has a trust fund for all her children, and that included any future children at the time she set it up. Although that does beg the question of why she can't just change it.

Women's rights really are at the bottom of the pile, even below people who don't exist.

Absolutely this.

silent

we advise clients to include "and their issue/children" into their trust deeds. Def not future children as you said it could lead to all sorts of issues. That said if she was to change the trust it'd deliberately exclude said embryos. Which you could legally argue that she had intention to "have" them at some point in the future. Very complicated.

But interesting.

One of my clients set up a trust for "future grandchildren" bypassing his children. Three out of the 4 have kids who benefit. The 4th doesn't. And won't.

It looks like soon in the US a woman's rights are going to be strongest before they're even born or implanted. Ffs! I hope she wins.

The whole case is insane.

I was thinking sometimes with wills people say any children still living at the date of my death, type thing. Obviously a problem if it's a bloke and he has any little secrets, they tell you that at law school, but maybe the future will be solicitors asking women if they've had any eggs frozen!

It is insane. But super interesting. I've got it on google news alert.

silent ah gotcha. Although anything really will cause issues down the line. There's always someone who isn't happy!

What. The. Actual. Fuck.

On what grounds could someone even become guardian of a 'person' (if we are assuming they would be classed as a person or equivalent) without their parents' consent???

Oh men do fuck me right off sometimes.

Oi! Less sexism please.

Owning a pair of testicles doesn't preclude me from seeing when a man is being a cunt.

A new low. Trump won so I guess he reckons he might as well give it a shot. The contemptible toadman.

IIRC he chose a state with stricter abortion laws than California, i.e. where the fetus has more of an equal say but not quite. He has named the embryos as well, within the legal file. Just abhorrent and disgusting behaviour.

He's a controlling man to do this, however, legally it's interesting and the general consensus is he won't win.

What a freak.

The only circumstance I can see it would be ok to overrule the written agreement between the two parents is that UK case from a few years back where the woman had cancer treatment and they saved some eggs, pre treatment, which were then fertilised by her then fiance and frozen. She then, as anticipated, lost her fertility completely to cancer treatment.

By the time she was recovered from the cancer, her fiance had left her and withdrawn his permission to use the embryos. She went to court to get his rights over the embryos lifted. The court refused.

In that case I could see that he basically took her last fertility option and killed it. They could have frozen just the eggs and she could have used a donor or a subsequent partner - but they didnt. He basically camped on her fertility - and then banned her from using it.

I guess the court did the right thing there but its always struck me as an awful, cruel case.

It doesn't matter how pro life the state is if there isn't legislation to support his case. And I can't see any evidence there is. You can
Bring any case you want, that doesn't mean it has merit

Wolverbampton The case has been brought in Louisiana specifically because the state has legislation which recognises embryos as 'juridical persons'. This means that embryos are recognised in state law as entities which have rights - including legal ones.

Backingvocals Thank you! That was exactly the case I was thinking of when I read the link, and it troubles me, random person taking ownership of embryos aside, that in the case you and I were thinking of (NOT Diane Blood - totally different case, but I can't recall the lady's name) that I completely sided with the lady wanting to implant her embryos conceived with her ex boyfriend, as she was unable to have conceive children after her medical treatment, whereas with Loeb I'm not sure if he has any fertility issues or whatever, and if he does then that might change viewpoints a little bit, but fundamentally how are the two cases different? In the case of a break up who has control over frozen embryos?

For what it's worth, on the surface it seems like he's being a massive dick, controlling within their relationship and now trying to exert that control years later.

I'm really sorry if this is an insensitive question but why would you choose to freeze an embryo as opposed to eggs or sperm separately? I know I'm missing something massively here.

I know that embryos freeze better than eggs alone so I guess that's why. But it leaves you exposed to these kind of issues.

Can you find the name yet? We're both thinking of the same case but I can't find her name.

Boogers

This one?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4779876.stm

That's it. I felt desperately sorry for her.