anthonyqkiernan
|
Ethical Minefield
Dec 12, 2002, 11:17
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2559557.stm
Am I right in thinking that David Stewart is making a big mistake backing this one? Or am I seriously missing something.
I've heard this woman on the radio several times this week going on about how she should have been consulted. I can't help thinking that if she'd 'consulted' her ex it wouldn't have benn such a surprise.
|
Lord Lucan
|
Re: Ethical Minefield
Dec 12, 2002, 11:44
|
Well, the article says that the eggs were donated by another woman. So neither eggs nor (obviously) sperm contain her own genetic material. As you say, it seems this woman was quite prepared to use the embryos without the former husband's knowledge. The children would have been 50% genetically his. What about HIS right to NOT be a father to his former wife's children?
The only way to avoid this kind of thing is to keep the eggs and sperm frozen seperately. Freezing an embryo will inevitably cause problems, as two people's DNA are already inextricably linked.
Although I sympathise with this woman's desire to have children, I really think she's wrong to be so indignant about her ex-husband requesting the destruction of his own genetic material.
|
anthonyqkiernan
|
Re: Ethical Minefield
Dec 12, 2002, 11:47
|
|
That was kinda my take on it too. I reckon that if you changed the regulations (which look for consent from both parties) you open up a whole can of worms. Next they'd need to offer men a say over abortions.
|
Merrick
|
Re: Ethical Minefield
Dec 12, 2002, 12:17
|
I can see both sides on this one. While my main instinct is to agree with Lucan about the guy's right not to father kids by his ex, he did consent to having the embryos made and frozen, so must've known something like this could come up.
Part of me thinks that couple split up and one of them might wish they'd never had kids together, but it's too late for that and they can't apply to have their kids destroyed. Is the making of a frozen embryo also past that line? I dunno.
Actually, I take back saying that I see both sides. In truth, I see neither side. I don't see what the big deal is about biological parenthood. In the article Mrs Grant says, 'it was my only chance of having a family, my one and only chance snatched away from me'. What utter bollocks. Has she any idea how many kids are out there having crap lives in heartless care homes cos nobody will foster or adopt them?
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Ethical Minefield
Dec 12, 2002, 12:32
|
Your utter bollocks comment was spot on! Like you say, she wasn't going to be the biological mother of these kids anyway, except for the minor act of carrying them for nin months <runs like buggery for cover sniggering>. Kids from these destroyed eggs would have carried none of her genetic material, so what's different about adopting?
I know I'm a bloke and I don't understand the whole giving birth thing, but saying that it was her only way of having a family is indeed utter bollocks.
And anyway, who says she won't meet someone else, get some more eggs and sperm and have kids in the future? Is she really that bad that she couldn't possibly find someone else?
|
anthonyqkiernan
|
Re: Ethical Minefield
Dec 12, 2002, 12:42
|
Yeah, if she can't sustain a normal loving relationship what kind of mother would she be?
*runs to join 4W behind the couch*
|
necropolist
|
Re: Ethical Minefield
Dec 12, 2002, 13:05
|
she's probably a bit old now to be accepted onto another programme, but....
tough on her, but no one has a 'right' to have children, and bloody right too
|
Lord Lucan
|
Re: Ethical Minefield
Dec 12, 2002, 15:11
|
|
Quite right. And what she's asking for is basically the 'right' for her to use other people's sperm and eggs, without their permission. How could that possibly be made into a law?
|
