Welcome to Gaia! ::

I think it's disgusting that this woman is so selfish she'd spend thousands of dollars on litigation and invitro to have a child with a man that does not love her when she could just adopt a child. What's so ******** special about her genetics that it must be biologically her child? It is absolutely shameful that millions of children die each year from starvation and easily curable diseases and this woman would waste so much money to physically give birth.


The embryo is not yet attached to the uterus. It isn't abortion to kill it. It isn't "forced" abortion to kill it because nothing is done to the woman against her will or to end a pregnancy. A pregnancy is prevented.

Also, courts are notorious for forcing men to pay child support even when they are not biologically the father because it is in the best interest of the child. There is no guarantee that the courts would keep the promise, or that if challenged later by this woman and her child that they would uphold the prior ruling because they may change their minds and require child support for the benefit of the child.


Ultimately the entire case is a property dispute. Who owns the embryos?

I'm more outraged, though, at the reasons given for denying her the embryos. They say they don't want her to be a single mother? WTF does being a single mother have anything to do with who owns the embryo, and who gets to use it?

She should've frozen her eggs, not embyos. That way she could have kids with whoever she wanted later on. But I can imagine at the time she had assumed they were on the same page and that he wanted a baby too.

Nothing is "wrong" with it, it's horribly selfish but it's not wrong.
I don't really blame the guy for revoking his offer either but it's kind of stupid that they're going through this huge legal battle when she could just go get a sperm pop and make some new embryo's.

Strange how the biological father agreed to use his sperm to make embryos, but I understand that we make certain decisions based on love. He probably thought at the time that he was going to be with this woman for good, only to split up later. I don't blame him for not wanting to be involved with this woman or agree to use his fertility to create a child he does not want.

I do not agree that this is a forced abortion because although it can be argued that both the woman and the man's fertility is at stake here, the woman's bodily integrity is not an issue here.

Talon: I do agree that she could just adopt, and perhaps it can be argued that wanting children that are biologically your own is selfish. However, we regularly argue that being selfish is not a bad thing, and many women DO want their own children.

We also argue that consent must be express and ongoing, but like I said: if it was an issue of her being pregnant and him suddenly not wanting to become a father, the case WOULD be laughed out of court.

I personally think that HE is being far more selfish than SHE is. She can't have children of her own if the embryos are destroyed; he can. It wouldn't have to affect him in the slightest if she used the embryos - the courts could easily put him down as not being the father and not having to pay child support. But they don't want to, 'cause then there'll be another single mother needing benefits. It DOES affect her because she cannot have her own children.

While she probably should have had the foresight to freeze eggs instead of embryos, she didn't. I still think she should be allowed to use them.

There is a difference. I should stop making that point. >.<

My main point is that it wouldn't affect him whether she became pregnant or not, as long as he wasn't prevailed upon to be involved or contribute money. It just screams uncompassionate git at me. I wonder if the situation had been reversed would the embryos still be destroyed?