Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Woman loses appeal over frozen embryos

13»

Comments

  • #62
    bronte
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,331 ✭✭✭✭bronte


    It'd be seriously creepy if she won.
    He shouldn't be forced into fathering a child with her if he doesn't wish to.


  • #63
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    seamus wrote: »
    Or to be a little fairer, imagine the father came along and decided he wanted his new girlfriend to be a surrogate mother to the children, but his ex-wife would listed as the mother on the birth cert.

    Should he be able to do this without the consent of his ex-wife? ie?

    You won't get an answer to this as I also made the point with no response.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63518989&postcount=40

    Men are rarely seen on equal terms in such areas.

    Gald that now seems to be changing and not before time.


  • #64
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    seamus wrote: »
    Or to be a little fairer, imagine the father came along and decided he wanted his new girlfriend to be a surrogate mother to the children, but his ex-wife would listed as the mother on the birth cert.

    Should he be able to do this without the consent of his ex-wife? No, clearly not.

    I have to agree with the above.

    If consent is not required from both parties as to when and where embryos
    are implanted, then both parties would have equal right to choose when & where implantations took place, including new partners or surrogates - and that's not fair either.

    If the woman in this story views these embryos as her children already - and IVF is not a particularly pleasant experience as far as I am aware in terms of repeating the process with anyone else, then it's of course a very sad outcome for her - but I think it's the right one.


  • #65
    Cheap Thrills!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,723 ✭✭✭Cheap Thrills!


    I'm glad she lost too.

    A friend of mine has 2 kids from IVF, she still has about 6 embreyos over in the Rotunda fertilized from that one cycle. Or should I say her and HER HUSBAND have 6 embreyos there.

    If they split then that is the end of the embreyos and thats as it should be.

    No life should be brought about without the explicit permission of both Mother and Father. They agreed to the existing child that is born, but there was nothing regarding future ones. Even if there was, the couple have now split up so any 'agreement' is a snapshot of how things lay back then, its not a robust 'written in stone' agreement going forward which applies eternally.The womans rights are equal to the mans, they do not supercede them.

    Fathers rights in this country are already badly in need of a legal overhaul to bring them equal to a Mothers.

    So I am glad the judge saw sense here and threw out her bogus attempt.

    Just because you want something really badly doesn't mean you can trample all over someone elses rights to get your own way.


  • #66
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    anniehoo wrote: »
    Oh and by the way it feckin amazes me that fertilised embryos in a lab can be destroyed, yet abortion is still illegal in this country.:confused:

    Three 'thanks' you received for this (all women I might add) :rolleyes:

    A fertilised 'Embyro' is not comparable to a three week old 'Fetus', let alone a 24 week old one.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Three 'thanks' you received for this (all women I might add) :rolleyes:

    A fertilised 'Embyro' is not comparable to a three week old 'Fetus', let alone a 24 week old one.
    To be fair Pete, people may have thanked the post because they agree that it's ridiculous that you can destroy an embryo outside the womb but if it's inside the womb it magically becomes a crime.
    Up to nine weeks, an embryo is an embryo regardless of where it resides.


  • #68
    Overature
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 908 ✭✭✭Overature


    glad she failed, i will do what i want with my own sperm, she can feck off


  • #69
    Overature
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 908 ✭✭✭Overature


    anniehoo wrote: »
    I kept changing my mind about this today and finally came to the conclusion that she should have got to keep them and have the chance to produce siblings for her current child.

    Those embryos were created equally and consensually by both parents at the time so although their marital status has changed, the value of the lives of those embryos hasnt. Her husband entered into IVF with the expectation and hope "life" could and would be created. It was. They had one child.The fact that some of that life has been "on hold" doesnt make it any less right that the other embryos should be destroyed.

    Ive always quandered about abortion and the "right to life" choice. But, even though its IVF, its basically "scientific sex"! You entered into a decision and life was created.Generally its the female who gets the ultimate decision in real life but on this occasion, if you have a willing and loving parent prepared to love and nurture the rest of that potential childs existance then i think it should be allowed go ahead. If the father under legal law has refused to allow it then something should be stated that legal guardianship is denied and therefore any maintenance should be nullified and the "father" has no legal,financial or parental rights from then on.

    there not fetus's there cells, they arent life


  • #70
    Overature
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 908 ✭✭✭Overature


    the womans 43, way to old to be having kids, her womb is all dried up


  • #71
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    seamus wrote: »
    To be fair Pete, people may have thanked the post because they agree that it's ridiculous that you can destroy an embryo outside the womb but if it's inside the womb it magically becomes a crime.

    If they disgreed with IVF I would see your point and say fair enough.

    However, they don't.

    They argree with IVF so by saying that "it's 'ridiculous' that Embryos can be destroyed, where as abortion is illegal" .. is a nonsense.

    Abortions are carried out, in some cases, up to 26 weeks.

    To say 'How come abortion is illegal and yet you can destroy embryos in the lab' is a great argument when you are anti-abortion.

    But when someone who is pro-IVF makes that statement (or agrees with it) it has much deeper implications.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Prof.Badass
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Prof.Badass


    anniehoo wrote: »
    Oh and by the way it feckin amazes me that fertilised embryos in a lab can be destroyed, yet abortion is still illegal in this country.:confused:
    Wait......what?

    :confused:

    Surely it would be the countries that have it the other way around that amaze you?

    For an embryo in a lab to become a baby it requires human interferance. There are millions of embryos in the world, so finding enough women to bring them all to term would be an impossible task.
    If you were to leave an embryo in the lab without interfering it would never become a child, whereas if you were to leave a developing fetus without interfering it most surely would become a child.

    Lastly you have the fact that abortions are usually done for convenience, whereas embryos have the potential to drastically improve the quality of life of millions of people.

    Clearly the argument for allowing the destruction of embryos is much, much stronger than that for allowing abortion.


  • #73
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    If they disgreed with IVF I would see your point and say fair enough.

    However, they don't.

    They argree with IVF so by saying that "it's 'ridiculous' that Embryos can be destroyed, where as abortion is illegal" .. is a nonsense.

    Abortions are carried out, in some cases, up to 26 weeks.

    To say 'How come abortion is illegal and yet you can destroy embryos in the lab' is a great argument when you are anti-abortion.

    But when someone who is pro-IVF makes that statement (or agrees with it) it has much deeper implications.

    I thanked the posts sentiments, I'm not getting too semantic about the phraseology. This country has very deliberately chosen not to legalise abortion, yet allows foetuses to be created and destroyed in other situations - completely unlegislated. I found it an odd contradiction, nothing more. :)


  • #74
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    I thanked the posts sentiments, I'm not getting too semantic about the phraseology. This country has very deliberately chosen not to legalise abortion, yet allows foetuses to be created and destroyed in other situations - completely unlegislated. I found it an odd contradiction, nothing more. :)

    Fair enough, I just don't see the contradiction personally :)


  • #75
    cc-offe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 455 ✭✭cc-offe


    Will there be increases of embyros created with the mothers egg and a donor sperm now after this even though the woman is happily married?


  • #76
    hamlet1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 181 ✭✭hamlet1


    Overature wrote: »
    the womans 43, way to old to be having kids, her womb is all dried up
    agree with you completely Overature,she is far too old.any way she has two kids already,surely thats enough for her.how can those cells in a testtube be even considered unborn,when they aren't even in a womb where they MIGHT grow but probably won't.


  • #77
    fly_agaric
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,764 ✭✭✭fly_agaric


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    This country has very deliberately chosen not to legalise abortion, yet allows foetuses to be created and destroyed in other situations - completely unlegislated. I found it an odd contradiction, nothing more. :)

    No, both stances fit perfectly with Ireland's babyish politics and politicians, our tendency to always sweep uncomfortable issues under the carpet.

    The blanket ban on abortion keeps pro-lifer people happy. We have cheap travel to a neighbour which allows abortion on demand to 24 wks (!!) for the victims of messy situations we might have to take a position on otherwise.

    Politicians also try to ignore the area of assisted reproduction because they know they'll infuriate some section of their constituents if they take stands on how it should be used.


  • #78
    Ronan|Raven
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,164 ✭✭✭Ronan|Raven


    Could they be turned into a tasty omlette?


  • #79
    shuvly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 527 ✭✭✭shuvly


    Mmm, lovely, with a but of placenta and dried porcina mushrooms, yum yum.Oh, and a little bit of garlic and special sticky sauce...


  • #80
    shuvly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 527 ✭✭✭shuvly


    Maybe shud be moved to the recipe thread now..Oops, slightly off topic.. barred.


Advertisement
Advertisement