Actress sued by own embryo's

Gatling

Just when you think lawsuits can't get any worse actress Sofia Vergara is been sued by her own frozen embryo's for denying them the rights to an inheritance and education ,led by a former partner .

Has it really got this bad .

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/sofia-vergara-being-sued-frozen-9409736

Advbrd

Giving up ****!

Atoms for Peace

I'm a mass murder so, as ive probably denied about a billion sperm a chance at life.:D

Ted111

She's freezing her embryos. This is the new thing is it?

s4uv3

Yeah, that's a mirror story. Loada me bollocks.

...And Justice

Advbrd wrote: »

Giving up ****!

NO!!!!!!

gumbo1

FFS!

Sand

That is just bonkers.

Why is the guy hung up on these embryos? If he wants a family that bad why not do it the old fashioned way and settle down with a nice woman who he doesn't need to communicate with via lawyers?

I am interested in the outcome of the case though. I'd have a view that in the same way as women have (or should have) the right to terminate a pregnancy when they're not ready for or don't want kids, men ought to be able to terminate their rights and obligations to an fetus for the same reasons within the same time limits available to women. So zero in Ireland, for now.

The outcome of the case could be interesting as nobody is asking the actress to actually carry the children to term so her rights over her own body are not directly impacted by the children being carried to term by some other woman. That's the usual argument for it being entirely a womans decision to terminate or not terminate, its her body, not the mans even if he has contributed to the child. If the court throws it out (which it should - its a bonkers case) then it does fall in line with people having the right to opt out of biological parenthood even where their bodies are not directly impacted.

eviltwin

Sand wrote: »

That is just bonkers.

Why is the guy hung up on these embryos? If he wants a family that bad why not do it the old fashioned way and settle down with a nice woman who he doesn't need to communicate with via lawyers?

I am interested in the outcome of the case though. I'd have a view that in the same way as women have (or should have) the right to terminate a pregnancy when they're not ready for or don't want kids, men ought to be able to terminate their rights and obligations to an fetus for the same reasons within the same time limits available to women. So zero in Ireland, for now.

The outcome of the case could be interesting as nobody is asking the actress to actually carry the children to term so her rights over her own body are not directly impacted by the children being carried to term by some other woman. That's the usual argument for it being entirely a womans decision to terminate or not terminate, its her body, not the mans even if he has contributed to the child. If the court throws it out (which it should - its a bonkers case) then it does fall in line with people having the right to opt out of biological parenthood even where their bodies are not directly impacted.

She's the highest paid woman on television at the moment apparently. I'd say money is at the root of this.

Sand

eviltwin wrote: »

She's the highest paid woman on television at the moment apparently. I'd say money is at the root of this.

With some googling, this guy is from a background where the family business is a wall street investment firm. He's loaded. No kids though despite being married before.

Something else I think is going on, but I cant imagine what. Some guys can be crazy after a breakup and crave any sort of contact, even confrontational.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Sand wrote: »

With some googling, this guy is from a background where the family business is a wall street investment firm. He's loaded. No kids though despite being married before.

Something else I think is going on, but I cant imagine what. Some guys can be crazy after a breakup and crave any sort of contact, even confrontational.

Apparently he had two exs who he broke up with for having a divorce while dating. He could just want kids and he may consider those embryos a nice way tor him to do that on his own. He has applied for her to have her parental rights stripped.

Sand

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Apparently he had two exs who he broke up with for having a divorce while dating. He could just want kids and he may consider those embryos a nice way tor him to do that on his own. He has applied for her to have her parental rights stripped.

Yeah, but hes loaded. If it was just 'I want kids - woman optional' motivation he could do it easier, with no courtroom drama. Not to be too crude about this, but he could donate his own sperm, find/pay a woman willing to inseminate herself and carry them to term and waive her own parental rights and ride off into he sunset for a nice payoff. No media frenzy. No common riff-raff poking into his personal life from the newsstands at Walmart. Michael Jackson basically did the same thing, and Ronaldos son apparently sprang from thin air.

Hes willing to go to court for these embryos in particular. Hes even given them names. Its odd. Well, even more odd than the above alternative.

ceadaoin.

eviltwin wrote: »

She's the highest paid woman on television at the moment apparently. I'd say money is at the root of this.

I think he's fairly wealthy himself. He must be to have the money for these type of lawsuits. He's already brought her to court to get the embryos and lost afaik. Apparently he signed a document years ago stating that nothing can be done with the embryos without the consent of both of them. I'd say there are some control and maybe revenge issues going on here.

daheff

be an interesting court case. Court would have to decide that the embryos are legal people first....then the 'father' can sue on their behalf.

Even in a country as crazy as Merica, cant see a court deciding that an embryo is a legal person!

ceadaoin.

Ted111 wrote: »

She's freezing her embryos. This is the new thing is it?

It's fairly common during the IVF process to freeze embryos for later use.

super_furry

daheff wrote: »

Even in a country as crazy as Merica, cant see a court deciding that an embryo is a legal person!

They've already decided that corporations are legal persons, I wouldn't rule anything out - especially with Trump making the next Supreme Court pick.

HellSquirrel

Well, that would be a hell of a precedent if the pro-life Supreme Court have to rule on it. If an embryo is a legal entity, what implications does that have in terms of a foetus in the womb, etc.

osarusan

Hmmm...interesting.

Not so much the case itself of education and inheritance, but the issue of ownership of frozen embyros which are (morally? philosophically?) 50/50 the product of both parents.

Cupcake_Crisis

Sand wrote: »

Yeah, but hes loaded. If it was just 'I want kids - woman optional' motivation he could do it easier, with no courtroom drama. Not to be too crude about this, but he could donate his own sperm, find/pay a woman willing to inseminate herself and carry them to term and waive her own parental rights and ride off into he sunset for a nice payoff. No media frenzy. No common riff-raff poking into his personal life from the newsstands at Walmart. Michael Jackson basically did the same thing, and Ronaldos son apparently sprang from thin air.

Hes willing to go to court for these embryos in particular. Hes even given them names. Its odd. Well, even more odd than the above alternative.

Have you seen Sofia Vergara? Good genes, she'd produce beautiful children.

Outlaw Pete

His body, his choice.

Cupcake_Crisis

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

His body, his choice.

But he signed a legal document agreeing that nothing could be done with them without the consent of both parties. One party is withholding consent.

It's all a bit bloody weird.

Sand

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

But he signed a legal document agreeing that nothing could be done with them without the consent of both parties. One party is withholding consent.

It's all a bit bloody weird.

Ah, but the clever dog is now sidestepping that by having the embryos sue her for denying them the right to live their life and inherit their fortune - denying them their constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness. Nothing to do with him...

The whole thing hinges on if the courts will accept that the embryos can have a legal personality. Or if they are just biological cells sitting in a freezer. If the court accepts the first point (and that's a really big if) then it gets more interesting.

Cupcake_Crisis

Sand wrote: »

Ah, but the clever dog is now sidestepping that by having the embryos sue her for denying them the right to live their life and inherit their fortune - denying them their constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness. Nothing to do with him...

The whole thing hinges on if the courts will accept that the embryos can have a legal personality. Or if they are just biological cells sitting in a freezer. If the court accepts the first point (and that's a really big if) then it gets more interesting.

I can't see them accepting that, it opens to many legal loopholes. One to watch though.

Chain Smoker

Sand wrote: »

Something else I think is going on, but I cant imagine what. Some guys can be crazy after a breakup and crave any sort of contact, even confrontational.

That'd be my guess, what better source of renewed contact than having kids with them

I doubt even a 7-2 conservative supreme court would approve of this one, so part of me kind of would like to see it get that far just to see how nuts the conservative side of the supreme court can be.

_Jamie_

Sand wrote: »

That is just bonkers.

Why is the guy hung up on these embryos? If he wants a family that bad why not do it the old fashioned way and settle down with a nice woman who he doesn't need to communicate with via lawyers?

I am interested in the outcome of the case though. I'd have a view that in the same way as women have (or should have) the right to terminate a pregnancy when they're not ready for or don't want kids, men ought to be able to terminate their rights and obligations to an fetus for the same reasons within the same time limits available to women. So zero in Ireland, for now.

The outcome of the case could be interesting as nobody is asking the actress to actually carry the children to term so her rights over her own body are not directly impacted by the children being carried to term by some other woman. That's the usual argument for it being entirely a womans decision to terminate or not terminate, its her body, not the mans even if he has contributed to the child. If the court throws it out (which it should - its a bonkers case) then it does fall in line with people having the right to opt out of biological parenthood even where their bodies are not directly impacted.

It's certainly an interesting case. Legal abortion as a concept is something I can see happening in the future and it's a concept that has legs, IMO, and this case is in that vein, as if he is successful, presumably she will have the choice to not be involved as a parent or financially.

I agree though, I can't understand why he wants to have his ex's children so bad. It's not like he has a biological clock to worry about and this will be his only chance to have sprogs.

The Wolverine

_Jamie_ wrote: »

It's certainly an interesting case. Legal abortion as a concept is something I can see happening in the future and it's a concept that has legs, IMO, and this case is in that vein, as if he is successful, presumably she will have the choice to not be involved as a parent or financially.

I agree though, I can't understand why he wants to have his ex's children so bad. It's not like he has a biological clock to worry about and this will be his only chance to have sprogs.

Yes I think "legal" or "financial abortion" is the terms being pushed for a father absolving all economic and other responsibilities where a woman wished to keep a child

After all borrowing from pro abortion argument not all contraceptive is effective so why should the man be "punished" either In all seriousness it's the only equal way

Can't see all the abortion supporters supporting that tho

_Jamie_

The Wolverine wrote: »

Yes I think "legal" or "financial abortion" is the terms being pushed for a father absolving all economic and other responsibilities where a woman wished to keep a child

After all borrowing from pro abortion argument not all contraceptive is effective so why should the man be "punished" either In all seriousness it's the only equal way

Can't see all the abortion supporters supporting that tho

What makes you think that?

It would need to be as strictly controlled as abortion is, decided at a very early stage of the pregnancy, not seven months in. I think many people would agree with it and at least see the logic.

The Wolverine

_Jamie_ wrote: »

What makes you think that?

General hypocrisy. All but one of the people I've asked who are vehemently for abortion wouldn't hear of man having a financial abortion as it was

"abandoning the woman to struggle alone"
"Allowing deadbeat dad's to get away with it"
"He shares 50% responsibility so needs to man up and be a dad"

I'd hope it's only my own experiences but I won't hold my breath

jamesbere

Advbrd wrote: »

Giving up ****!

And 2016 was bad enough without this

HellSquirrel

The Wolverine wrote: »

General hypocrisy. All but one of the people I've asked who are vehemently for abortion wouldn't hear of man having a financial abortion as it was

"abandoning the woman to struggle alone"
"Allowing deadbeat dad's to get away with it"
"He shares 50% responsibility so needs to man up and be a dad"

I'd hope it's only my own experiences but I won't hold my breath

That is an awkward one. When the embryos are not implanted, no, I certainly would say that the female should not be pushed to have them implanted to carry them to term. Which is a very different situation, but appears to be closer to the one going on in this case.

If abortions were freely available, then yes, the male should have some say in it, it is also his genetic material. If abortions are still jumping through hoops, condemnation for the woman that has one, and having to travel to another country, then putting her into a position where her partner's insisting she has an abortion or else he won't support his child, while also making it as hard as possible for her to -get- an abortion...is cruel.

The other point I will make is that the male's choice is also a choice over someone else's body. Forcing them to have a medical procedure done. And that -is- a tricky issue in itself. However, let me say again that I accept that the embryo is the genetic material of both and therefore both should have a say.

The difficulties aren't clear-cut, which is why this is such a controversial issue. I'm sure there are women out there that believe men should get no say because of a long history of women's reproduction being controlled, primarily by men. And that period did not end long ago. There are others worried about bodily autonomy, others concerned about impacts on rape cases, or disabled children or any of the other arguments that usually come up in debates about abortion. I could even see pro-life people being against it just because it's another step towards abortions being available.

It's not as straight-forward as "those women are just hypocrites" though.

CIARAN_BOYLE

_Jamie_ wrote: »

What makes you think that?

It would need to be as strictly controlled as abortion is, decided at a very early stage of the pregnancy, not seven months in. I think many people would agree with it and at least see the logic.

Many women wouldnt tell men they are pregnant till after the cut off point.

HellSquirrel

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Many women wouldnt tell men they are pregnant till after the cut off point.

Some would for various reasons. But the absolute worst thing to do with a difficult subject like this is assume that "men will do this" or "women will do this". Sure, you have to take into account how laws can be abused, intentionally or otherwise, but if we start from the point of view that the other side is the enemy, we'll never get anywhere.

I know you said "many", but still, it's worth bearing in mind that "women" and "men" aren't hive minds and the majority of people are just ordinary, normal people getting on with their lives.

Gatling

HellSquirrel wrote: »

That is an awkward one. When the embryos are not implanted, no, I certainly would say that the female should not be pushed to have them implanted to carry them to term. Which is a very different situation, but appears to be closer to the one going on in this case.


The other point I will make is that the male's choice is also a choice over someone else's body. Forcing them to have a medical procedure done. And that -is- a tricky issue in itself. However, let me say again that I accept that the embryo is the genetic material of both and therefore both should have a say.

He's not looking at Sofia Vergara to be implanted he wants them to be given to a surrogate to carry to term , removing her from the equation and complicating the situation further

CIARAN_BOYLE

HellSquirrel wrote: »

Some would for various reasons. But the absolute worst thing to do with a difficult subject like this is assume that "men will do this" or "women will do this". Sure, you have to take into account how laws can be abused, intentionally or otherwise, but if we start from the point of view that the other side is the enemy, we'll never get anywhere.

I know you said "many", but still, it's worth bearing in mind that "women" and "men" aren't hive minds and the majority of people are just ordinary, normal people getting on with their lives.

My point is (made quickly on the phone) that its unfair men are allowed legally disown a fetus prior to a certain stage of pregnancy as men (especially the ones who would want to disown said fetus) may not become aware of said fetus until after the cut off point.

Maybe a man should have two months from notification to disown the fetus rather than having until the mother is 7 months pregnant as he may not be informed.