h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I don't think anyone is going to disrespect that. If you do want to get it changed through law, keep thinking about why. Consider whether you're just doing it because of your political background or the beliefs and values instilled in you, and whether succeeding in getting the law changed would have a positive impact. Personally I feel that for women to have the right to choose termination is the path of least harm.

Also, as has been suggested many times, consider that there might be more worthy causes. Off the top of my head, how about allowing Africa to manufacture and cheaply sell drugs to treat AIDS, which are currently only available at hugely marked up prices from western companies.

hi bouncy,



well said.

az

Just because you're entitled to take legal action doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. In the end you have to consider if it is the right thing to do. Is changing or challenging the law going to make things any better, will it make our society a better place to live in? After all if we re-criminalise terminations, will it do anything to reduce the number of terminations or improve the living conditions of people who continue their pregnancy.

I believe that the answer lies in making legislative changes that improve our society, be it to improve (or in many countries introduce) universal health cover, or an effective and compassionate welfare system. In so doing we will make our society one where woman are more likely to consider pregnancy a happy and viable option for them.

Using the legal system in a paternalistic or authoritarian way is no different to "literally standing - blocking the door or something violent." How does this show the qualities of true christian ethics or values. As I have said before (hope I'm not sounding like a broken record) we should be showing compassion towards woman and their partners in the decisions they make. At the end of the day no matter what their decision is they don't just disappear at the end of it all. They go on living (and in some cases grieving) and need our compassion and support more than ever be it to continue with the pregnancy or to deal with the consequences of a termination.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3151762.stm

quite an interesting story

I personally think in that case the law should probably remain the same, as much as I sympathise with the women involved.

And this was perhaps the most useful of the comments on the page:

The question for me remains: why were the eggs fertilized at all? Why weren't unfertilised eggs stored for the future use of these unfortunate women? This should be addressed by the HFEA and perhaps considered by Parliament.
S. Powell, UK

I'm not certain, but I think it is as yet not possible to freeze unfertilised eggs, otherwise that would have been the obvious course to follow in the first place.

This sad case has raised again the issue of rights. People do keep forgetting that with rights come responsibilities.

I don't think everyone has a right to have a child. Very difficult to arbitrate in these cases where there are three inter dependent parties to consider.

I heard that at least one of the women in this case is wondering about the option of donating the embryos to someone else. Will the fathers be against this too?

The thing is that its a very personal set of rights.

And honestly if I was one of the men in question, I think I would take the same position. I certainly wouldn't want the embryos to be donated to someone else.

Well, perhaps this comes back to the Monty Python song - every little sperm is sacred

Any man who w*nks loses tons of sperm each time. And doesn't feel a personal attachment to them.

If a man's sperm is used to fertilize an egg to be frozen until a time in the future that it might become a human . . . well, that's a tough call, isn't it.

The two women in that article who wanted to use the frozen embryos to have a child presumably *want* to have a child and this is their only way to do this. If they choose to do this without making the man who donated the sperm financially responsible in any way for supporting the child that might be born, well, I don't see why the man would object. Surely the men in question have w**ked off enough sperm over the years to not take this sort of thing personally.

It would be interesting to know Nerd42's opinion on these frozen fertilized embryos. As in, are they 'babies' as well?

Bouncy, I find it curious that you would not want your sperm-donated fertilized embryo to be used by anyone else. Why not?

I still find it a shame that with so many parentless children needing homes that people wanting children of their own do not adopt. There seems to be this thing about wanting something of your own flesh and blood. But in the bigger picture, looking at humankind as a large global family, surely all children can become one's own child. To love and care for. Why is the desire to have a child restricted to it needing to be from one's own body?

az

I think the adoption problem is that most people prefer a perfect new-born to start their family. Not so many of those available for adoption. Also the assessment procedures for eligibility to adopt are extremely rigorous.

Yes, well assessment procedures for adoption should be quite rigorous, don't you think?

It just sad that people who feel a need to have a child and nuture it and help it grow also feel this should be a 'perfect new-born'. There are so many older children who need love and caring. Kids who are lost. Kids who truly need a home and a family.

Well, it isn't a perfect world.

It has often been said that how well a society treats those who have 'fallen' shows how advanced and humane that society is.

Our society is not doing such a hot job of this at the moment.

az

The thing is, I think, that you would feel attached to the eventual baby, because you would think of it as your baby whatever happens.

I can't really explain this, its just sort of a general feeling of revulsion at the idea of someone that you didn't want to be with having your child.

There is no practical harm to the man I must confess.

Bouncy,

Really? So then you agree with Nerd42 that a few cells growing in a tube or within a womb are in fact a baby?

az

Oh they're not a baby, but if the woman has them implanted and becomes pregnant then they will be a baby, and whatever happens you would still feel that's your baby, and it'd be weird if you didn't want that woman to have your baby.

Its similar to what Nerd says I'll admit, but the subtle difference in the situation is that the terminated cells never will be a baby, whereas the implanted ones could.

Bouncy,

Okay, but when a woman is pregnant and decides to have a termination those cells are still a potential baby. In this sense, the cells growing in a tube and the ones growing in the womb are the same thing.

If a woman becomes pregnant naturally she does not need the permission of the man who got her pregnant to continue with the pregnancy if she so chooses.

az

No, but she does need the permission of the man to sleep with him in the first place, and if she was planning to get pregnant deliberately then hopefully she'd ask him about that too.

The cells in the tube and the ones in the womb are undeniably the same, that doesn't necessarily make the situations the same. The termination is to minimalise harm. Its probably a good idea that the father be consulted, but in the end the cells are there in the woman's body and so it must be her choice. With the cells outside her body, to me it clearly has to be a joint decision. And if you don't want to have a baby with someone the natural way, you're probably not going to be too happy having a baby with them artificially either. Well, I wouldn't be.

Ah, but accidents happen, also there are some women who deliberately aim to get pregnant without the man's knowledge or consent.

In the cases mentioned, I think one has to bear in mind that the men still have the opportunity to father children, the women don't. So although input from both 'parents' should be considered, there are factors which the court could have considered to give one opinion more weight than the other.

The situation seems to me to be similar to sperm donors who have knowingly fathered children that they don't have any relationship with. However in this case there was a relationship with the woman that broke down & I can't help feeling that there is an element of animosity on the part of the man because of that.

ummm. . . the whole idea behind the newpaper article *was* that these two women really wanted to have the child without the father. Even if this had to be done artificially.

I personally don't see a lot of difference between cells growing inside or outside a body.

It is curious to see how men can feel protective and territorial about cells fertilized by them growing outside a woman's body, yet often they refuse to take any responsibility when this happens to a woman when she becomes pregnant through them and those cells are growing inside her body.



az

"If a woman becomes pregnant naturally she does not need the permission of the man who got her pregnant to continue with the pregnancy if she so chooses."

True. And if the man demands that she have an abortion, she doesn't have to if she doesn't want to. And if the man wants her to continue with the pregnancy, she can ignore him and abort if she wishes.

Translation: once a woman is pregnant, the father has no rights AT ALL. Responsibilities by the bucketload, of course, moral, financial, emotional, the lot, but no rights whatsoever. Equal treatment before the law? Don't make me laugh.

Here's a thought: try to imagine the situation turned around.

Imagine: the man and the woman have split up. Frozen embryos exist. The MAN discovers he is now infertile. He demands that the woman, who is in a new relationship, carries his baby to term. She refuses. He takes her to court. How much sympathy would he get? How much success through the courts? Right.

Those women signed up for a course of treatment which they KNEW could only be carried out with the full consent of both partners. Lacking that consent, they attempted to use the law to force those men to become fathers against their will, after their relationships had broken down. If a man tried something similar, there would be cries of "rape". Why have these women not been vilified for the evil people they are?

The verdict in that case was a rare victory for common sense and equal rights, and, one hopes, one small step towards turning the law away from its current grotesque favouring of women over men. It should also remind people that their much vaunted "human rights" emphatically do NOT include the right to breed, and never have.

H.

I agree with your last sentence, Hoo.
However, I didn't get the impression that the women were trying to force the men to be fathers in the sense of any financial or emotional involvement. They were merely wishing to attempt to become mothers using their own eggs. I presume that they might still be eligible to have donor eggs & sperm as an alternative.

I think that a more apposite reversed scenario would be the man, having become infertile, asking that the embryos be implanted into his new partner. Would you view that as equally unacceptable?