Battle over frozen embryos - Sofia Vergara

[timeandchancewin]

Not sure this is the right section for this, but anyway..Sofia's ex is suing her for the right to use their frozen embryos to be be carried by a surrogate. His argument being he should have the same rights as a person carrying an unborn baby.

I don't even know what the rights are for a person carrying an unborn baby if the other partner does not want to go through with it anymore, I'm not aware you have any?

looks to me like a rich guy used to getting his way attemptung to bully an ex partner who had the temerity to end a relationship with him

He is already in another relationship (wonder what new partner makes of all this) so I don't think it's a control or anything like that, it seems he really views these embryos as his 'children' daughters even and doesn't want to destroy them.

It could set a new precedent if the courts find in his favour. what if the ex had been preganat with Sofia's baby, he would have the right to carry it to full term regardless of the fact they are no longer together wouldn't he? One wouldn't say he was having the baby to control her? I'm just playing devil's advocate here, Personally I think he should leave the embryos and move on, they're not real children

do you think he mourns the millions of his sperm that die every time he knocks one out?

This particular sperm was 'knocked out' to fertilise an egg purposefully to create life, so not the same.

Why do you think he had to tell the world via an op-ed piece in the New York Times?

A person carrying an unborn baby is a pregnant woman.

A man who has some frozen fertilised embryos is not a pregnant woman.

Therefore he doesn't have the same rights. There is no body autonomy involved.

Presumably they made the frozen embryos as a couple together to be parents together. So the terms and conditions (as it were) aren't being met.

It's not right to force someone to become a biological parent (pre pregnancy) when they don't want to.

The other option is that the embryos are destroyed.

Which is the right option?

There is no moral maze here. They contracted that they would implant the ivf eggs into a surrogate mother if, and only if, they both consented. He is now doing a bit of goalpost moving, trying to breach the contract by re-writing it.

he could have done it quietly through the courts, and probably lost.

It is my opinion that he's actually being a dick, deliberately trying to bully and shame her. I could be wrong, of course , and it could be his pro-life, catholic beliefs, which he referees to, that is making him call this "tantamount to murder", but then one might ask why a devout Catholic would a) have children out of wedlock, and b) go down the ivf route, which is not sanctioned by the church. unless c) he's a bit of an arsehole

The news piece I saw says that there is no precedent for attempting to implant frozen embryos against the wishes of one 'parent' unless it is the only chance of one to have their own biological child (eg has happened for those whose fertility was destroyed by cancer treatment).

That does not apply here.

Perhaps, if his sole interest is to seek a life for the embryos he created with potential for life, he should attempt to reach agreement on donating them to another couple who cannot make their own?

Thing is, they don't need to be destroyed.
They can be left, and my limited understanding is that the older they get, the less viable they are? To the point they will almost expire?

Is it not possible to freeze eggs and sperm unfertilised? Or does that lessen the chances of ivf success?

Seems that would prevent this problem.

God, if I was in this situation with my husband who was now an ex, I can't imagine the horror at either legally being forced to have another biological child with him, or to know that another couple was raising my biological child. Forced egg donation?

Thing is, they don't need to be destroyed.
They can be left, and my limited understanding is that the older they get, the less viable they are? To the point they will almost expire?

Expired is the same as destroyed.
Also, if neither parent is able to use them, why pay for storage?

well, there was a case in the UK a few years back where a woman had fought for the right to use frozen embrio's after she'd split from her ex. iirc she'd had treatment for cancer and they'd frozen embrio's before her treatment. But they then split meaning she would no longer be able to have children with another partner. Iirc she lost and the embrio's were destroyed.

Tbh I don't think it's different for a man to want the same, I do think it would be wrong to allow it though, for either the man or the woman.

Freezing eggs and sperm separately is not as successful (well certainly in the case of the eggs) as freezing embryos which are more likely to survive the process.

I think this is pretty clear cut, as already pointed out by other posters. No implantation has occurred so bodily autonomy doesn't come into it. The consent form for treatment requires the consent of both parties to continue and this doesn't apply here. He has no rights to proceed without her consent so, ultimately, the treatment cannot continue.

This reads to me as an attempt to bully someone via the court of public opinion.

He is already in another relationship (wonder what new partner makes of all this) so I don't think it's a control or anything like that,

You'd be surprised.

The embryos should only be implanted if both agree.
A pregnant woman has already had consent for implantation.

There have been plenty of cases like this before (although this is the first one I remember where it's the man who wants to use the embryos and the woman who doesn't want to) and AFAIK no court ever has ruled that one ex-partner can use them without the consent of the other ex-partner.

The only difference here so far as I can see is that he's motivated solely by religious belief/personal conviction (might have been a good idea to remember before he got started that the Catholic church is opposed to IVF, on a host of grounds but "...and what happens to unused embryos?" is one of them, and also not to sign a contract that conflicted with his religious belief/personal conviction) whereas in the cases where it's the woman suing it's generally been because she is now infertile and the frozen embryos represent her only chance of ever having a biological child. But legally the principle is exactly the same.

The issue is here is that they are embryos. Some people will see those embryos the same way they would see a foetus, a living human being.

Of course, you can argue on whether this is the case or not but there is some issue to debate there.

Then there is the issue of whose' rights' it is to use these embryos. If it had been the woman, would it be reasonable to let her have the babies even though her partner at the time is against it?

And finally, if the babies are born (surrogate or not) who are the parents? I imagine both sets of initial parents. If you can conceive a child yourself within another relationship, why on earth would you want a child like this? Why would you want to put yourself in a situation where you have deal with an ex all the time? Who would have parental responsibility? Would you be happy to see said children to go away to their mum 50% of the time? (Usual set up in the US when parents are separated).
It just doesn't make sense at all.
that's without the fact that, as the new gf, I would go mental if he wanted to have the children from his ex using a surrogate

Yes I agree with all the comments, except on medical grounds, which doesn't seem to be the case here.

Mind you Sofia is rather lovely isn't she, I'm sure he's not alone in wanting to share embryos with her.

Plus the open letter came out at the same time as the premier of her new movie and this came about when she announced her engagement to someone else. They also signed a contract saying the eggs can't be used unless both agree.

I get the feeling this is all about keeping her attention then it is about his religious beliefs.

Expired is less intentional/active than destroying or ivf.
They would have expired regardless of a parental relationship or not.