BS: No 'right to choose' this...

Subject: RE: BS: No 'right to choose' this...
From: Grab
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 08:01 AM

Firstly there's the equality issue. The women agreed at the start that the men would have the right to decide whether they wanted to use the embryos. The men shouldn't be able to force the women to bear a child, and the women shouldn't be able to use the embryos without the men agreeing either. This is not a "loophole in the law" as McGrath says, it's simply that you have to give consent at the time the embryos are used.

In real terms it has nothing at all to do with abortion. As far as "neither party having rights to the destruction of a fertilised embryo", well that's exactly what happens every day in assisted-fertility stuff. Many embryos are fertilised, the doctors select those which are developing properly, and the rest are destroyed.

Re artbrooks's question, AFAIK you *cannot* in UK law waive parental rights, so there is a financial aspect to consider as well. If these children were born, the women (with the full assistance of the Child Support Agency) could insist that they pay maintenance. There are numerous cases of fathers forced to pay maintenance long after they had agreed to waive contact rights with their child.

Logically, the CSA shouldn't assist in that. However the CSA institutionally supports the woman and doesn't consider the man's situation, which is the reason organisations such as Families Need Fathers have been set up. My sister-in-law's brother is one such case - he's been left basically homeless after his divorce, since his ex-wife took the family home (to which he had paid mortgage payments for 10 years) and requires maintenance payments such that he can't even afford to rent. He's been forced to move in with his girlfriend (who he hasn't known that long) from a simple lack of anywhere else to stay - if that fails, he'll be out on the streets. When the maintenance payments got raised just recently, he told the woman at the CSA that he simply couldn't afford this. Her reaction was "I don't care, give me your bank details if you want to see your child again." He's got no route of appeal that doesn't involve him losing contact with his children, and he doesn't want to scar the children with a lawsuit against their mother.

Sure, I sympathise with the women, but they are still able to have children from donated eggs, or adopt. Whilst it will not be their genetic inheritance, it will still be their child.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: No 'right to choose' this...
From: harvey andrews
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 07:15 AM

I've read the article and posted to jenni Murray. My point is that the same rights must apply to the father, and the woman must agree to carry the child if she leaves the relationship and the man wants his baby born and is willing to accept all repsonsibilities in the same way as a woman would as a single parent.I can't see women accepting this and therefore the law should remain as it is.

Subject: RE: BS: No 'right to choose' this...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 06:17 AM

Actually the men involved are going back on an agreement they made, using a loophole in the law which evidently makes it legal for them to withdraw consent which they have alrady given.

Technically speaking what is involved is not forcible abortion, and I never said it was - no misunderstanding on my part. But in real terms it is no different.

Here's an article about this (from a feminist point of view) in today's Guardian Cruel, mean spirited and selfish

Subject: RE: BS: No 'right to choose' this...
From: mack/misophist
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 01:15 AM

McGrath of Harlow seems to misunderstand the situation. The word abortion is not appropriate here. These women are not pregnant and, had they made the other choice, would not be in this situation. That is to say, their situation is as voluntary as is that of the men involved. An agreement was signed under existing law. They're trying to break it.

Subject: RE: BS: No 'right to choose' this...
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 08:07 PM

Seems to me that once you give it away, your rights to it are kind of compromised.

If these guys had been so anxious, they should have kept a hold of it in the first place!

A

Subject: RE: BS: No 'right to choose' this...
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 07:53 PM

as opinionated as *I* am, I cannot for the life of me see a 'right' answer to this dilema we humans have gotten ourselves into!

Who 'owns' the rights to sperm, eggs, embryos...etc.. is not something we just ask a court to decide, though that is what WILL be done, and it will probably be changed several times as different groups get the power to do so! It will eventually come down to 'whatever you can get away with or pay for'.

So far, no one is asking how you explain to any child who DOES manage to be born this way who his daddy was ...and why

Subject: RE: BS: No 'right to choose' this...
From: Gareth
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 07:43 PM

There is a legal precedent in the UK - The father has no rights to insist that the mother carry the child to full term.

It's a nasty business.

But men don't have Babys, or any other responsabilities other than to pay support - If they can be found.

Sorry - having taken part in the odd "trace the boyfriend hunt", I have little respect for the actual way British Law performs.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: No 'right to choose' this...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 07:33 PM

"Equality in the law is all." In this kind of area what "equality" means isn't always too clear. For example I think there are very few people who would say that it should mean that a man should under any circumstances be entitled to force a woman to have an abortion, just because he is the father. And if the partners had made some quasi-legal agreement to that effect, I would trust that it could never be enforceable.

I think Harvey is wrong about what a commitment to "equality" would imply, if the law were changed so that that neither parent would have the right to insist on the destruction of a fertilised embryo.

Surely equality here would mean in principle that, if there was a woman who was willing to carry it to term, for example a new partner, she would be allowed to do so? Not at all the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: No 'right to choose' this...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 07:31 PM

"Equality in the law is all." In this kind of area what "equality" means isn't always too clear. For example I think there are very few people who would say that it should mean that a man should under any circumstances be entitled to force a woman to have an abortion, just because he is the father. And if the partners had made some quasi-legal agreement to that effect, I would trust that it could never be enforceable.

I think Harvey is wrong about what a commitment to "equality" would imply, if the law were changed so that that neither parent would have the right to insist on the destruction of a fertilised embryo.

Surely equality here would mean in principle that, if there woman who was willing to carry it to term, for example a new partner, she would be allowed to do so? Not at all the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: No 'right to choose' this...
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 07:00 PM

The fact that a woman has health problems in the area of reproduction or fertility is not the fault or responsibility of the man. He must not be forced to become a father any more than the woman should be forced to become a mother. In this case, all parties signed agreements that are binding. Time to move on.

Subject: RE: BS: No 'right to choose' this...
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 07:00 PM

Who could ever have possibly foreseen this kind of ethical problem becoming an issue? I sometimes wonder if our technological achievements haven't outstripped our morality, ethics, common sense, and (in the sense of entertainment) taste.

I agree with Art Brooks resolution to this specific problem, but unfortunately agree with harvey andrews regarding general equal rights as well.

Just the beginning of more thorny, difficult dilemmas, I fear.

Subject: RE: BS: No 'right to choose' this...
From: artbrooks
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 06:21 PM

Is it legal, and enforcable, under UK law for a mother to permanently waive all child support obligations that the father might have? I'm pretty sure it depends on the jurisdiction in the States, and I could understand the issue if it isn't posssible.

Subject: RE: BS: No 'right to choose' this...
From: harvey andrews
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 06:18 PM

The judgement is correct in my opinion. The law can be changed to give one parent the right to insist on the child, but that must mean that the man has the right to legally request the woman to carry his child if the relationship breaks up if he is willing to take responsibility for it. Equality in the law is all.The case is harrowing for the women I agree, but life isn't always fair. The men had the right they exercised as both partners had signed the agreement before the procedure started. The women had the same rights.

Subject: RE: BS: No 'right to choose' this...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 06:06 PM

The sperm has already been used, these are embryos, not eggs.

Subject: RE: BS: No 'right to choose' this...
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 06:01 PM

I think the men are being jerks -- unless the women expect full, participatory parenting from them. I f all they want is the use of the already given sperm cell, and make no further claim, then what the hell is it to them?

A

Subject: RE: BS: No 'right to choose' this...
From: jacqui c
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 05:45 PM

Anyway, Martin, why should we be concerned only with the music. It's nice to know that Mudcatters are concerned about serious matters and to hear their views on non music issues. It allows us to see more of the person than just their musical interests.

Subject: RE: BS: No 'right to choose' this...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 05:38 PM

Well it does say "BS", Martin Gibson, and you get to it by clicking the bit at the top of the page that says "BS/Non-music threads are listed below (click)"

And like a lot of BS threads, it could well turn musical, if someone writes or cites a song.

Subject: RE: BS: No 'right to choose' this...
From: jacqui c
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 05:30 PM

Kevin
I agree with you - this was the one chance these women had of having their own children and it has been taken away from them because the relationship broke down. The men involved can go on to father children by other partners and can have no understanding of how devastating it would be to know that you could never have a child that was biologically your own. I know that it is possible for these women to have donor eggs if they wish but the imperative to carry on one's own genetic inheritance is so overpowering in a lot of human beings...

I wonder if they'll take this to the Lords?

Subject: RE: BS: No 'right to choose' this...
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 05:18 PM

Another great musical thread................

Subject: BS: No 'right to choose' this...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 05:13 PM

The case reported here Women lose right to use their 'own' embryos seems to me as grotesque a decision as a court could make.

Essentially what is happening here is equivalent to a situation where a women was forced to have an abortion because the father of the child had second thoughts. And this is justified on the grounds that it is the expressioin of a "right to choose".

And I see the judge is quoted as saying that "The men were also deserving of sympathy and any criticism of their motives was unfair".

If anything is more grotesque than the judgement, I'd say that comment is.