Man fcuked over by his Ex

beefburrito · 07-10-2017 12:47PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This bit...

She didn't.

He gave it voluntarily. He had a child with her. He attended a consultation about the second child, so he even participated in the talks about using the embryo.

It's not some legalistic point. Reaching for the ad hominem and going on about lefties and legalities doesn't change the simple biology.

The fraud was in signing a document. And a Court has held that the recipient of that document was not negligent in relying on it.

His child, he has to pay up. Not because of some duty to her, she doesn't deserve anything, she faked consent to the thawing and use of the embryo. But because the child is his, and obviously maintenance is based on the needs of his child.

Ok Conor ok good lad.

But and I said it over and over....

She ****ed him over, that's my point.

He was fvcked over by his exe....

Nothing more nothing less,her moral obligations and compass are fvcked up.

Conor you're a part of the Snowflake porcelain society who sees only one side of the story.

And by the way I know a lot about embryos and spermatozoa.....

I spent long enough getting eggs and roe out of salmon trying to replenish the native salmon in our river systems.

07-10-2017 12:52PM

beefburrito wrote: »

Conor you're a part of the Snowflake porcelain society who sees only one side of the story.

Yet again going for the ad hominem...yaaaaaaaaawn.

I think the snowflake generation are known for their sensitivity. Ironically you seem far more upset about the issue than any other poster on the thread.

Anyway, you have learned the difference between sperm and an embryo. You should welcome any day when you learn something new.

07-10-2017 12:53PM

I'm gonna admit I'm not au fait with insemination and having children using this method but I would think that forging someone's signature to get a go ahead is on par with you giving their consent. That's not on. You should be the only one that signs your name to anything, whether that's for use of an embryo or a loan from the credit union. That's where it should begin and end.

07-10-2017 12:53PM

PeterParker957 wrote: »

She is abhorrent and a disgrace to women.

And anyone who defends this kind of twisted behaviour needs to have a serious look at themselves.

You might quote the poster who defended her behaviour, so we can look at what you are referring to.

PeterParker957 · 07-10-2017 12:56PM

Deleted User wrote: »

beefburrito wrote: »

Conor you're a part of the Snowflake porcelain society who sees only one side of the story.

Yet again going for the ad hominem...yaaaaaaaaawn.

I think the snowflake generation are known for their sensitivity. Ironically you seem far more upset about the issue than any other poster on the thread.

Anyway, you have learned the difference between sperm and an embryo. You should welcome any day when you learn something new.

The so called "snowflake generation" are primarily known for their sensitivity to only what they perceive as worthy of their interest.

Most of which tends to be meaningless nonsense

PeterParker957 · 07-10-2017 12:56PM

Deleted User wrote: »

beefburrito wrote: »

Conor you're a part of the Snowflake porcelain society who sees only one side of the story.

Yet again going for the ad hominem...yaaaaaaaaawn.

I think the snowflake generation are known for their sensitivity. Ironically you seem far more upset about the issue than any other poster on the thread.

Anyway, you have learned the difference between sperm and an embryo. You should welcome any day when you learn something new.

The so called "snowflake generation" are primarily known for their sensitivity to only what they perceive as worthy of their interest.

Most of which tends to be meaningless nonsense

07-10-2017 12:56PM

Omackeral wrote: »

You should be the only one that signs your name to anything, whether that's for use of an embryo or a loan from the credit union. That's where it should begin and end.

It might be akin to someone visiting their credit union, signing all the forms for a loan, meeting the manager and agreeing to the drawdown...but not signing the drawdown request. No credit union is obliged to authenticate the signature on the loan drawdown request or to ensure consent was not revoked.

PeterParker957 · 07-10-2017 12:57PM

Deleted User wrote: »

PeterParker957 wrote: »

She is abhorrent and a disgrace to women.

And anyone who defends this kind of twisted behaviour needs to have a serious look at themselves.

You might quote the poster who defended her behaviour, so we can look at what you are referring to.

Sure. One sec.

07-10-2017 01:00PM

Well I'd be p*ssed if I agreed to something in principle a while ago with someone but then they went ahead and signed something in my name at a later date. It's deceptive, pretty much fraudulent and just plain wrong.

PeterParker957 · 07-10-2017 01:01PM

Deleted User wrote: »

He participated in it, so it's not like he's completely a victim

There ya go.

07-10-2017 01:02PM

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I'd argue without his semen she would not have a viable embryo.

Let her have the kid. But he pays zero.

Or her egg, for that matter. I imagine she decided (as it suited her to) that the embryo was half hers anyway. You'd wonder what the procedure here is when an embryo is created containing half of each persons genetic material, and what the ethics are surrounding it's destruction when only wanted by one party. I suppose it must be very complicated.

She's totally to blame here, but if I was that guy I would have made the clinic very aware that I withdraw all permission for the embryos use especially when I was aware she wanted another child, just to cover myself. Then again, it's not like he could have foreseen the fraud I suppose.

silverharp · 07-10-2017 01:09PM

she should be outed and found unfit to be a mother

07-10-2017 01:10PM

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I'd argue without his semen she would not have a viable embryo.

Let her have the kid. But he pays zero.

So the child should be punished because Daddy changed his mind after he provided the semen?

Maintenance works on the basis of the needs of the child, not whether Mom was good or not.

Roger Hassenforder · 07-10-2017 01:12PM

Candie wrote: »

She's totally to blame here, but if I was that guy I would have made the clinic very aware that I withdraw all permission for the embryos use especially when I was aware she wanted another child, just to cover myself. Then again, it's not like he could have foreseen the fraud I suppose.

This.
He probably could have managed this a bit better!

07-10-2017 01:13PM

Candie wrote: »

Then again, it's not like he could have foreseen the fraud I suppose.

When a relationship breaks down you hear of people arguing over the CD collection.

He might not have anticipated the fraud, but after providing the semen and agreeing to the thawing and use of it, he could have been more proactive in taking steps to signal that he had changed his position.

PeterParker957 · 07-10-2017 01:13PM

Jesus wept.

No the "mom" should be punished for behaving disgracefully.

Let her pay for everything.

"But she wanted a child". Sfw??? I want a Porsche Boxster but I can't just steal one.

PeterParker957 · 07-10-2017 01:14PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Candie wrote: »

Then again, it's not like he could have foreseen the fraud I suppose.

When a relationship breaks down you hear of people arguing over the CD collection.

He might not have anticipated the fraud, but after providing the semen and agreeing to the thawing and use of it, he could have been more proactive in taking steps to signal that he had changed his position.

Sounds very like defending the harpy there chief?

07-10-2017 01:16PM

silverharp wrote: »

she should be outed and found unfit to be a mother

In what context or forum?

In abuse proceedings to remove children from unfit parents and place them in care?

In custody proceedings, somehow compelling the father to take the child?

Roger Hassenforder · 07-10-2017 01:17PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So the child should be punished because Daddy changed his mind after he provided the semen?

Maintenance works on the basis of the needs of the child, not whether Mom was good or not.

It's not unreasonable however, to envisage mommy deriving some benifet though as a result of his maintenance.
That Land Rover will have to be regularly replaced, nice house, holidays, groceries, etc. She's being effectively "rewarded" for her fraud, she knew full well what she was at.

He did nothing wrong
The kid certainly did nothing wrong
The clinic was found to have done nothing wrong

One scheming woman did, but can't be held to account.

07-10-2017 01:19PM

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Let her pay for everything.

Again, "she committed a fraud" is not the basis for maintenance in Britain, or indeed Ireland. It is based entirely on the best interest of the child.

Which is exactly how it should be.

tomwaterford · 07-10-2017 01:21PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So the child should be punished because Daddy changed his mind after he provided the semen?

Maintenance works on the basis of the needs of the child, not whether Mom was good or not.

It is a credit to the man,he is providing for a child he did not want/not even gotten your wan knocked up by accident

(and I for one wouldn't critise him,if he didn't pay any maintenance in this case)

He's 0% responsible here,and one would wonder about the quality of someone's morals/parenting skills,if they deem this way a good idea to go about having kids

It's a pure mess to bring an innocent kid into

Roger Hassenforder · 07-10-2017 01:24PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

When a relationship breaks down you hear of people arguing over the CD collection.

He might not have anticipated the fraud, but after providing the semen and agreeing to the thawing and use of it, he could have been more proactive in taking steps to signal that he had changed his position.

he didn't agree to have it thawed (and planted)
This is the issue
(He agreed to have the embryos frozen

07-10-2017 01:29PM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

he didn't agree to have it thawed (and planted)
This is the issue
(He agreed to have the embryos frozen

The article you linked says he attended a meeting about thawing and use.

He agrees he did so, but he said he did it to "avoid another shouting match".

PeterParker957 · 07-10-2017 01:29PM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

[Deleted User] wrote: »

When a relationship breaks down you hear of people arguing over the CD collection.

He might not have anticipated the fraud, but after providing the semen and agreeing to the thawing and use of it, he could have been more proactive in taking steps to signal that he had changed his position.

he didn't agree to have it thawed (and planted)
This is the issue
(He agreed to have the embryos frozen

Apparently agreeing to provide semen means she can now do whatever she wants with it. Even have a child with no permission or come back.

Imagine if someone suggested to a woman that agreeing to go home with someone meant she agreed to everything else and the sky would fall.

07-10-2017 01:30PM

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Apparently agreeing to provide semen means she can now do whatever she wants with it.

See above. He attended the consultation about thawing and use.

PeterParker957 · 07-10-2017 01:30PM

Deleted User wrote: »

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Apparently agreeing to provide semen means she can now do whatever she wants with it.

See above. He attended the consultation about thawing and use.

We're you there ?

07-10-2017 01:31PM

PeterParker957 wrote: »

We're you there ?

Erm.

It's in the article!

He confirmed he did, but says it was to avoid a shouting match.

Did you read that bit at all?

Or do you not believe he was there when he said he was there? It's a weak line to take.

bucketybuck · 07-10-2017 01:39PM

There is always one who decides to speak in favour of the criminal. Funny how it always seems to be the same one...

This man did not consent to having that child using that embryo at that time and with that woman. He did not consent, and lives have been harmed by this woman ignoring that lack of consent and by this company not performing proper due diligence.

The contrary can deflect from this core point all they want but the facts won't change, he did not consent and I hope the woman involved faces serious punishment.

KERSPLAT! · 07-10-2017 01:40PM

She used deception to have the embryo thawed, how anyone could defend her, whatever her age or circumstance, is beyond me.

Whatever he agreed to beforehand the clinic required his signature to progress with the procedure, he didn't give this so there was no further consent and oobviously no consent for the thawing of the embryo.

EagererBeaver · 07-10-2017 01:50PM

beefburrito wrote: »

[Deleted User] wrote: »

She didn't.

Read the article and stop making stuff up.

Nope.

He provided the semen sample willingly, a point completely lost on beefburrito. In fact, they'd had a child. He didn't give the consent to thaw a second embryo.

Nothing to do with theft of semen. He had willingly provided it. He had not consented to thawing an embryo.

Quite the barrister you'd make ol' boy.

Your evidence is complete rubbish.

Read the op again, slowly this time ol'chaps.

Nothing to do with being a great legal mind. It's to do with not being a complete ****ing numpty. She didn't steal semen. End of.

She did fraudulently unfreeze an embryo, and she should be put through the ringer for it.

Man fcuked over by his Ex

Comments