Any threads on the embryo case?

[Quootiepie]

Just wondering, as I think the decision is today...

there is nothing unsavoury about him..what a horrible thing to say.

He is just an average bloke who has been thrust into this sad event

well I did use the words look and like and thug and dp in close proximity to each other on mn recently

I hate the way she spells her name if we're getting picky about abstract things.

Sorry this looks like it's finished and I haven't read the whole thread (so why am I bothering to post ) but I feel really bad for her. If a condom had split and he had got a girl pregnant naturally without wanting to he would have no right to make her take the morning after pill. He gave his consent the day he handed over his sperm.

No he didn't. Legally you have to give consent at every stage, and he would have known that, as would she.

Ok sorry, I'm not clued up on the physical process.

What conceivable situation can anyone envisage where a man would be asking to use his ex-partner's eggs?
I really don't think this analogy works at all - for one thing, a third party would have to be involved for the purposes of gestation.

I don't think that there is woman in this land who does not feel for her, however, I do beleive the correct decision has been made.

Well, it is just about possible (though obviously extremely unlikely) that he would like to use the embryos if he became infertile through an illness. You can get surrogate mothers. The point for me is, how would you feel if that was the case? If you wouldn't be happy with it, why condemn him for feeling the same way.

Just seen that a couple of the judges sided with her. Would like to see their arguments.

Sometimes judges deliver a dissenting opinion in order to voice opinions on pecific aspects of the case, but in the knowledge that they are the dissenting opinion.

Shoudl be interesting reading (assuming that they're not too wordy!)

Everyone keeps talking about if the roles were reversed - he using her eggs to plant in his new partner.
But that is not the issue here - a new partner would be a third person, introduced at the last minute, to actually carry the egg.
It is her egg and his. She would carry it.
Where is the third person in this scenario ? What, the fact she has a new partner ? Who might be involved in the upbringing ? Everyone single one of us on mumsnet faces that possible situation - some of you are already in that situation where you are bringing up a child who is not biologically yours. Is that so awful ? I think not = step parenting .

I don't see that the reversing the situation, third person argument, is relevevant in this situation.

I haven't read the WHOLE thread, but has anyone mentioned the rights of the child, should it be born? (nb. not the embryos as they currently stand).

This whole debate seems to have been about the 'rights' of the parents rather than what this child's life would be like with 2 parents who hate each other and no chance of getting to know it's father. I know this happens sometimes in life (and is always damaging to the child) but should that choice me made knowing IN ADVANCE that this is the situation between the parents?

Oblamov, the pregnancy is temporary, the child is permanent. We are talking about the ethical question of ownership of the embryo. If you favour allowing her to use the embryo to produce a child against her partner's will, a child he will not be allowed to be a father to, would you also favour allowing the father to take the embryo to produce a child against her will that she could not be a mother to? I bet not!

Also, I doubt you would be happy to have a child knowing in advance that it would be exclusively brought up by someone you don't much like any more, plus a total stranger.

Aloha, lots of people, including mumsnetters, for whatever reason, split from the father of the child, whilst pregnant.
Some knowing in advance , - straight after conception, or during the 9 mths of pregnancy, that the other person does not want to father a child.
I am glad that I have never had to go through that quandry. But many people, have.

This case is different as she is NOT pregnant. He did not father a child, he helped make an embryo in a very stressful situation, then split up, all the time knowing that his permission would be needed to implant the embryo. He does not want to walk away from his role as a father, and that to me is an entirely reasonable and admirable position, much as I feel sorry for the woman.

it is because he is a conscientious man that he doesn't want a child knowingly born whom he will not be able to bring up in a partnership

if the judgement had been in her "favour" then he quite possibly would then have needed full parental responsibility as he doesn't want a child of his born without his involvement in his/her life and his moral code wouldn't allow him to relinquish that child as part of him

I really, really feel for her. I spent 12 years with someone who didn't want children, so I know what it's like to long for a child and not be able to have one. But I don't think he's the bad guy here, like Aloha says, he wants to choose when and with whom to have a child and when he does he wants to play a full part in the child's life and he should be allowed to.

It's just an awful no-win situation for anyone .

When he was interviewed, he was asked about her feelings. He only commented on his right to father when and with whom he chose. He does of course have rights. But one can't help but feel that their split was so acrimonious, that there is a great deal of spite and revenge in all of this aswell.
I believe the whole thing is really quite nasty and sour tasting.