Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I feel bad for her, but yeah....the father has rights too.
It's not even about that as much as the contract they signed which said that if they divorced, the embryos would be destroyed (IMO as they probably should be). They both agreed on that.
It sucks that she had cancer which is why they were frozen in the first place but it's not right to bring a child into a divorced relationship like that IMO. Imagine your parents divorcing before you were even born? It's a whole life of shuffling between houses, arguments, maybe step-parents. Yes plenty of children go through this but usually people divorce after having kids. Hindsight is nice; maybe she should have saved unfertilized eggs as well as embryos. But I understand that neither expected to divorce, I'm sure.
It's not even about that as much as the contract they signed which said that if they divorced, the embryos would be destroyed (IMO as they probably should be). They both agreed on that.
It sucks that she had cancer which is why they were frozen in the first place but it's not right to bring a child into a divorced relationship like that IMO. Imagine your parents divorcing before you were even born? It's a whole life of shuffling between houses, arguments, maybe step-parents. Yes plenty of children go through this but usually people divorce after having kids. Hindsight is nice; maybe she should have saved unfertilized eggs as well as embryos. But I understand that neither expected to divorce, I'm sure.
I agree with your first point regarding upholding the contract. But your second point about divorce should have nothing to do with it. Marriage has never been a requirement for having a child.
I agree with your first point regarding upholding the contract. But your second point about divorce should have nothing to do with it. Marriage has never been a requirement for having a child.
Exactly. I'm fine with single people having kids, with a donor or whatever. But IMO to bring a child into the world with divorced parents in a way that this woman wanted to is morally wrong and selfish. This woman wanted to use the embryos despite her and the father being divorced, in a divorce the ex husband called "acrimonious." I think in their situation this is wrong.
I agree with your first point regarding upholding the contract. But your second point about divorce should have nothing to do with it. Marriage has never been a requirement for having a child.
No, but it was usually something that took place. Our society is so much better off with children in homes without married parents.
The whole realm of modern reproductive technological techniques is a can of worms I think we ought not have opened (IMHO) ...
Because of my own life, I do have a great deal of sympathy for women who want to be mothers but have been unable to do so my "normal" means.
As a carrier of muscular dystrophy, I chose to have a tubal ligation and adopt rather than risk having my own biological children. (This was way back in the 70's before prenatal testing could tell whether a fetus would have that disease.) So, although one would think that I would be more open-minded to "radical" reproductive procedures than most people, I agree with Teilhard regarding creating life in a laboratory, as well as issues of surrogate motherhood.
Although I am mostly pro-choice, I just think there are too many difficult ethical issues when it comes to questions of "whose child is it?"; and I also think that discarding embryos is a form of premeditated murder -- unlike most abortions, which are a result of "accidental pregnancy" and therefore the abortions are not planned before the woman even conceives. Very few women, if any, intentionally become pregnant with the intention of having an abortion later. The idea of creating potential humans only to end up killing the embryos just crosses what is a very thin line for me, as far as when I think that killing an embryo or fetus is acceptable and when it is not. I just think that it is wrong to intentionally create human embryos in full knowledge of the fact that some of those human lives will almost certainly end up being killed.
Anyway, as I said, this is a very difficult issue, and to repeat the phrase you used, Teilhard, I think so much of what we can do now to create human life has indeed opened a very large "can of worms".
Last edited by katharsis; 11-19-2015 at 02:11 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
