Birth Rights
Posted: Wed 11 April, 2007 Filed under: Cynicism, Thoughts 8 Comments »I have to admit that I find myself feeling quite unsympathetic towards Natalie Evans, the woman who has just lost her case (for the fourth time) to be able to make use of embryos created with her partner of the time before she underwent treatment for cancer.
Now yes, I’m sure that it’s ‘preferable’ to have a child of your own, and all that jazz, but at the same time she appears (in this case) to be quite obsessed with the matter – to the extent of wanting the child of a partner she’s split up with, because they’re the embryos that are available. I can kind of understand wanting to have your ‘own’ child, but that- to me, anyway – is going too far, to attempt to legally force your ex-partner to become a father, even though he no longer wants anything to do with you. To drag it out for six years makes it sound even more obsessive.
In my own cynical mind I also suspect that any child this woman had borne would be an utter hellspawn , because she’d wanted it so much, its every whim would be catered for. Of course, that’s just me being cynical, I’ve no proof of it.
I’m sure she would argue that, as they froze an embryo (rather than eggs), he had already agreed to become a father. If you create an embryo in the “natural” way then it’s too late to back out, he’s had the luxury of having the option after the embryo was created.
She’s probably so “obsessed” because he has taken away the consent he already gave, I can see why she would be a bit pissed off at that.
That said; there isn’t an easy right or wrong answer, that’s why it’s been in the news so much…
you could argue that to take away consent like that in a matter where she can’t have children and he can with another is a very evil way of hurting an ex partner. I think it is more of a power thing. Like Steve says if they could have had children the natural way she would probably gotten pregnant. You can’t withdraw consent then so why should he be able to now. You make the decisions you make at the time and you should stick to them. After all, having a child is not something you should decide on lightly. They could have quiet easily come to some arrangement where he does not pay child support.
I think the other point is that the fact of the matter is that these are her only eggs left which had the misfortune to be fertilised by this particular man, an issue which presumably she feels was not her best move in life, but in this case, as they are her last eggs she has to work with what she has. I’m sure if they were her eggs in store the last person she would be fertilising them with is her ex!
He gave his consent when he donated his sperm. I am sure she had no desire to drag it out for six years, and I think it’s absolutely awful: she is going to have to live with her embryos being destroyed against her wishes. If they were in utero and the legal system decided on a forced abortion, I am sure you would be condemning that legal decision. It is about time that men stopped having control of women’s fertility. A “woman’s right to choose” should be applied consistently, or it makes no sense. Or are you one of those anti-abortionists, who reject a woman’s control over her own fertility?
Dear Lord, no, I’m not an anti-abortionist. In fact there’s a fair number of people I can think of who would’ve been far better off if they’d been aborted… Ahem, anyway.
I agree up to a point, that it’s pretty grim from both sides of the story. And yes, if the pregnancy/birth thing had been in utero and done at the time, then fine, hey ho. The time delay is a factor in this, though – the fertilisation was done in the knowledge that the embryos wouldn’t be used for years yet.
And what would’ve happened if her cancer had been so far advanced as to be incurable? What would have happened to the embryos then? Would the father have had the legal right to get them used still in some kind of surrogacy deal?
So far as I can see, these embryos were a back-up plan for the future. And – as happened – in that time, things, people, and decisions change.
eh up luv, that last comment was way on another planet. i know lets change the complete facts of the case just so that you can win the argument…
Not at all. The fertilised embryos were created and saved so that she could have a baby later in life, if the treatment for the cancer rendered her infertile. Which is what happened.
During/after the cancer treatment, she split up with her partner (or he split from her – whichever) and withdrew his consent.
Ergo, the embryos were a back-up plan. If she’d wanted to have a child there and then in 2001, then fair enough, and none of the resultant kerfuffle would have happened. as it was, they had embryos frozen for use later. At which point they become, I suppose, ‘property’ rather than ‘baby’ – at least in the eyes of the law. Hence, the kerfuffle when partner chuffs off and says ‘no, you’re not doing that’.
Although I suppose that in some perceptions, it could’ve been more of a custody case than a property case…
Backup plan or not, as Gert says “He gave his consent when he donated his sperm.”
If it WAS a backup plan he consented to that. If it wasn’t, he still consented.
But does that give HIM the right to change his mind? That’s what we are saying here I think. He gave consent, and has changed his mind.
No?
Also, another factor is that at that time (I think the technology has improved now) UNfertilized eggs could not be stored effectively – they would degrade too quickly and become unusable. The *only* way to preserve them was to store them as fertilized embryos. So it wasn’t as if there was another alternative at the time prior to her cancer treatment.
On the flip side, even a private agreement to waive child maintenance costs will be completely ignored by the CSA if she ever has to go on benefits in the future, for whatever reason.
It’s a messy, messy case and I’d hate to have been the judge or on the jury.