The Daily Mail's collective brain explodes...

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

This is to do with the case of a woman, post chemo and now sterile, wanting to have frozen fertilised embryos implanted.

Her boyfriend now has denied permission.

So, the front page covers the story with a big "WHO IS RIGHT?" ponderation.

They really can't decide. Which is fair enough, but you can feel the frustration of how they REALLY HAVE TO DECIDE OH NO! SHALL WE RUN A PHONELINE? START A THREAD?

(Well, if it works for 18yroldvirgs, ...)

― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 11:56 (nineteen years ago)

boyfriends can deny permissions now?

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 12:00 (nineteen years ago)

the scottish edition has decided by not running that as the splash. thank fuck.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 12:00 (nineteen years ago)

Has a stern, opinionated letter appeared in their letters page signed by a "Ned Raggett, WC1"?

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 12:00 (nineteen years ago)

summary:

Boyfriend: If g/f uses embryos, he is the natural father and has responsibilities, etc.

Girlf: If she doesn't use them, she cannot conceive a baby with direct familial genes, etc.

There is no right answer. If the boyfriend was given a 'get out of parental responsibilities for free' ticket, that might appeal to him. But that goes against UK law (i believe).

― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 12:06 (nineteen years ago)

he's an ex-boyfriend, surely?

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 12:06 (nineteen years ago)

oh i see! it's actually their embryos.

why did he agree to jizz into it in the first place?

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 12:44 (nineteen years ago)

they were going out.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:03 (nineteen years ago)

I'm surprised the Mail are being so even-handed. I'd expect them to be firmly on the side of not allowing it, as would I be, as it happens.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:13 (nineteen years ago)

What does this do to the anti-abortion league who believe that life begins at conception?

(However, I *still* think it's the woman's choice - if the embryos had already been implanted in her, it's not like he could have forced her to have an abortion.)

― I'm Not Afraid Of Singularities (kate), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:15 (nineteen years ago)

if the embryos had already been implanted in her, it's not like he could have forced her to have an abortion.)

no perhaps not, but for that to happen he would have to have agreed to it?

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:22 (nineteen years ago)

So he jizzed in a test tube instead of her vagina. What's the difference?

― I'm Not Afraid Of Singularities (kate), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:23 (nineteen years ago)

A man has no rights over a woman's decision if she is pregnant, and has to just "deal with it" if she decides to abort/not abort against his wishes (I am 100% in favour of this, btw!! It's the woman's body etc)

In this case though, the woman is not pregnant and therefore the issue is not control over her own body, and there is no reason I can see why the man should not be able to refuse consent in this case.

― Colonel Poo (Colonel Poo), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:23 (nineteen years ago)

So he jizzed in a test tube instead of her vagina. What's the difference?
-- I'm Not Afraid Of Singularities (masonicboo...), March 8th, 2006.

lady, if...

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:24 (nineteen years ago)

You can subtract one "in this case" from my last post. I haven't had my lunch yet, can't think straight.

― Colonel Poo (Colonel Poo), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:27 (nineteen years ago)

Surely he gave his consent by donating the sperm in the first place. It's not like he wasn't AWARE that's what it was being donated for. Otherwise, she's have just frozen her own eggs and used donor sperm.

She implants the embryoes and renounces any claim to child support etc from him - it seems quite clear to me.

― I'm Not Afraid Of Singularities (kate), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:29 (nineteen years ago)

She implants the embryoes and renounces any claim to child support etc from him - it seems quite clear to me.

-- I'm Not Afraid Of Singularities (masonicboo...), March 8th, 2006

but he is or might be implicated in this if and when the kid wants to meet him.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:30 (nineteen years ago)

She can't renounce child support though! It's against UK law.

The only solution I could think of was if somehow she gets married to someone else and they adopt the kid, but that's not very straightforward!

― Colonel Poo (Colonel Poo), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:32 (nineteen years ago)

but he is or might be implicated in this if and when the kid wants to meet him.

Not to mention -- keeping in mind I don't know UK law on this -- the child would almost certainly have an heir's claim in any estate the man might leave behind.

― phil d. (Phil D.), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:34 (nineteen years ago)

He is a misery guts.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:37 (nineteen years ago)

The law is very clear, according to what I've heard on the radio. In these cases consent from both parties has to be made at the time of the freezing and the point at which conception is brought about.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:37 (nineteen years ago)

What I can't get my mind around is that the man can somehow REVOKE his consent, after the embryo has already been created, just because the embryo was frozen? That just smacks of wrongness to me. What on earth did he think his sperm was being taken FOR? It's not like the woman nicked a condom out of the trash or went "hey, honey, do you mind spunking in this turkey baster for me..."

What's the implication for blokes who change their mind after the fact in other circumstances? "Hey, we had a fling, but when she got pregnant, I told her to have an abortion!"

― I'm Not Afraid Of Singularities (kate), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:39 (nineteen years ago)

they were going out.
-- The Man Without Shadow (miltonpinsk...), March 8th, 2006 1:03 PM. (Enrique) (later) (link)

haha is jizzing into test tubes what couples do nowadays? i am still stuck in the times when people just go to cinema and hold hands.

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:40 (nineteen years ago)

What's the implication for blokes who change their mind after the fact in other circumstances? "Hey, we had a fling, but when she got pregnant, I told her to have an abortion!"

-- I'm Not Afraid Of Singularities (masonicboo...), March 8th, 2006.

well, it's all about the 'other circumstances' innit.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:41 (nineteen years ago)

What is a turkey baster? I hear about them all the time.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:43 (nineteen years ago)

If he hadn't given his consent AT THE TIME, then she could have just frozen her own eggs and not had to involve him at all.

― I'm Not Afraid Of Singularities (kate), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:44 (nineteen years ago)

kate is right - yeah the issues phil d and nrq mention are difficult but there are going to be difficult issues anyway. i don't see that this is about control of the woman's body so much as a contract (verbal?) re what the bloke's sperm was to be used for, ie to make a child at some point in the future, and the fact that he donated the sperm in the first place is evidence of consent right there (i wonder, could he have revoked this consent right after they split? rather than waiting until she decided to use it?)

― The Lex (The Lex), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:44 (nineteen years ago)

baster = a little brush thing?

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:44 (nineteen years ago)

Turkey baster:

http://easycookin.com/catalog/images/38681_turkey_baster_lg.jpg

― I'm Not Afraid Of Singularities (kate), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:47 (nineteen years ago)

The little brush thing you're thinking of is a pastry brush - they are useful for fertilisation, but of plants rather than animals or people.

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:50 (nineteen years ago)

yeah i was gonna say...

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:50 (nineteen years ago)

it's intersting though. this matter strides over kind of two different areas but not quite either. it's kind of like an abortion, but without the "it's my body i can abort if i want to" issue. so this is a neutral issue, because at this point there isn't really any power/control/pain issues that is bias either way.

So the real issue is whether EITHER party has a right to not go through with this, like, if the dude wanted to, should he be allowed to ask for the embryo to be implanted into someone else's body?

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:52 (nineteen years ago)

Big pipette.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:53 (nineteen years ago)

The dude isn't STERILE, like she is now.

― I'm Not Afraid Of Singularities (kate), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:53 (nineteen years ago)

That's not dude's fault, nor is it dude's responsibility to let her have his child if he doesn't want her to.

― Colonel Poo (Colonel Poo), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 14:11 (nineteen years ago)

that isn't what I thought a turkey baster looked like at all.

― Cathy (Cathy), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 14:13 (nineteen years ago)

No, it's not his fault, but it just adds an extra bit of pure meanness and spite to his already bastardness.

― I'm Not Afraid Of Singularities (kate), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 14:13 (nineteen years ago)

Well, yeah, I'm not saying bloke isn't a meanie for not letting her go ahead with it, but it's not her RIGHT to have his child under these circumstances.

― Colonel Poo (Colonel Poo), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 14:15 (nineteen years ago)

is there no other way for her to have a child?

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 14:17 (nineteen years ago)

Not one that is genetically hers - her ovaries were removed shortly after the embryos in question were made.

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 14:18 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, what a cunt, imagine not wanting to be forced into having a child he doesn't want.

Get one pro-choice argument, invert, shake.

xpost

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 14:18 (nineteen years ago)

No, sorry, this is ALL about choice. And he made his already - he doesn't get the right to change his mind.

I'm just repeating myself, so I'm going away now.

― I'm Not Afraid Of Singularities (kate), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 14:20 (nineteen years ago)

He might well be a spiteful bastard but he's within his legal rights to refuse consent as it will be his child too. It's a shitty situation for her, but people don't have a right to have children. We're lucky enough to live in a part of the world where conception can be aided by technology, but the technology doesn't make the rules change in that way. They aren't a couple, they aren't sleeping with each other any more, and she wouldn't have the right to demand unprotected sex with him could she conceive the sex-type way.

― beanz (beanz), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 14:21 (nineteen years ago)

Why doesn't he get the right to change his mind though? Especially since the law states he has to give consent twice?

― Colonel Poo (Colonel Poo), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 14:22 (nineteen years ago)

So you choose to fuck someone and risk pregnancy and end up pregnant... you've made your choice? You don't get to change your mind?

xpost again

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 14:22 (nineteen years ago)

Not one that is genetically hers - her ovaries were removed shortly after the embryos in question were made.

-- Forest Pines (il...), March 8th, 2006.

ah, that does make him that much more of a git.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 14:22 (nineteen years ago)

It's like I said uptop: There is no right answer.

That's no help to the judge/court...

But, it's not the Daily Mail's place to judge either.

(It's never stopped them before, but etc..)

― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 14:24 (nineteen years ago)

better to do nothing, I should think

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 14:28 (nineteen years ago)

I think he's within his rights because there's a two-stage consent, but you HAVE to ask why he's being such a git, unless conversely he grew up without a dad and wouldn't put anyone through it, or is somehow not confident the mother will get to live to see the child grow up when he wants nothing more to do with her.

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 14:52 (nineteen years ago)

I think he's being a git because she dumped him, and he's bitter about the whole thing. So I heard.

― ledge (ledge), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 15:10 (nineteen years ago)

So she harvested his sperm then dumped him. Who's the git again?

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 15:14 (nineteen years ago)

So this is just about his revenge? Foolish and weak men, allowing their emotions to overcome their reason and their ethics.

― I'm Not Afraid Of Singularities (kate), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 15:20 (nineteen years ago)

Quite, after all women are never known to enact petty revenge when they are spurned are they?

― Colonel Poo (Colonel Poo), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 15:22 (nineteen years ago)

spermed

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 15:27 (nineteen years ago)

Or selfish women allowing their emotions to do likewise?

Was she planning on dumping him before she got his sperm? Why did she dump him? Why didn't she get an anonymous donor? We know next to nothing about this but it seems rather easy for people to decide this man is a "git" for changing his mind about fathering a child after his circumstances change.

I don't see how not wanting to father a child with someone who dumped you is in any way sacrificing your ethics. It's a perfectly reasonable stance. It's sad that this woman can't have children without his permission but also fair and just.

xpost

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 15:28 (nineteen years ago)

The embryos are my favourite chacracters in this sad and sorry tale (that I haven't read and don't intend to).

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 15:31 (nineteen years ago)

You should give them names.

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 15:39 (nineteen years ago)

That would be very catholic.

― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 15:40 (nineteen years ago)

You mean everyone does that?

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 15:41 (nineteen years ago)

He's quite obviously within his legal rights but I don't understand why the law in these cases involves two-stage consent. They both agreed to have a child together once already - why allow this situation to arise in the first place by building in another consent stage?

The ex did say that it wasn't a case of wanting to avoid responsibility, but to do with his belief that children should be raised by two parents in a loving relationship, which obviously he and his ex-fiancee couldn't now provide. I see his point of view but it's just so heartbreaking for the woman :(

― Archel (Archel), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 15:49 (nineteen years ago)

Right, so his 'position' is one broadly in line with Daily Mail 'policy'.

Yet, her 'position' is the one they would normally sympathise with.

― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 15:51 (nineteen years ago)

i don't see that the mail would normally back her in this.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 15:53 (nineteen years ago)

Aren't they against freezing embryos in the first place?

― Archel (Archel), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 15:54 (nineteen years ago)

Of course, if she had had eggs frozen instead of a fertilised embryo, there would be no issue. I don't know what the relative success rates of getting a baby are though.

― Archel (Archel), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 15:56 (nineteen years ago)

Why is the idea of adoption so terrible in this case? The woman can still become a mother without giving birth, and spares the father and child from a lot of issues re: being unwanted.

― My Psychic Friends Are Strangely Silent (Ex Leon), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 15:58 (nineteen years ago)

You guys don't have the "snowflake babies" phenomena over there now, do you?

― kingfish da notorious teletabby (kingfish 2.0), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 15:59 (nineteen years ago)

explain please?

― beanz (beanz), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 16:01 (nineteen years ago)

They all look different but are perfectly symmetrical.

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 16:01 (nineteen years ago)

They fall from the sky when the nights get longer.

― beanz (beanz), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 16:02 (nineteen years ago)

Why is the idea of adoption so terrible in this case? The woman can still become a mother without giving birth, and spares the father and child from a lot of issues re: being unwanted.
-- My Psychic Friends Are Strangely Silent (nicole.kessle...), March 8th, 2006.

well she can, as can anyone, but she wanted 'her own'.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 16:02 (nineteen years ago)

Snowflake Babies is an american rightwing fundie thing, where they adopt frozen embryos.

It's what happens when rabid anti-choice folks go after in-vitro fertilization.

― kingfish da notorious teletabby (kingfish 2.0), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 16:05 (nineteen years ago)

So, they send someone over, get them preg/implanted, and the man has no say in his egg/sperm donation, because they have guns?

― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 16:07 (nineteen years ago)

What Psychic Friends said. But even if she's hell-bent on getting her own DNA out into the world, why can't she just wait until she hooks up with somebody else, somebody more into being a dad w/her? And then they could raise the little embryo as their own?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 16:09 (nineteen years ago)

Haha I think I am asking "the Internet" these questions.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 16:10 (nineteen years ago)

She can't do anything with the embryo without the father's consent. She has no other chance of having a child that is genetically hers.

― Archel (Archel), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 16:12 (nineteen years ago)

Tracer, I think the lack of ovaries is going to be a stumbling block there.

x-post

― phil d. (Phil D.), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 16:12 (nineteen years ago)

See also: Moses babies, where they argue that rape/incest pregnancies get carried to term.

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 16:17 (nineteen years ago)

No, I mean keep that li'l frozen embryo as-is until there's a "loving father" on the scene. It wouldn't be HIS, but it would be HERS. Or am I missing something?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 16:19 (nineteen years ago)

Actually, you are closer than most of us.

Unless the boyf. states that it has to be the original 'parents' only...

― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 16:20 (nineteen years ago)

Why not let The Internet take care of the baby

― beanz (beanz), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 16:21 (nineteen years ago)

He's quite obviously within his legal rights but I don't understand why the law in these cases involves two-stage consent.

I may be wrong (I haven't been following this case very closely) but my understanding was that he donated his sperm because they might want to have kids in the future. So there is two stages - the agreement to donate his sperm, and the decision to go ahead and have a child in the future. She was arguing her right to make the second decision unilaterally, and on that basis I think the court's decision was correct.

― frankiemachine, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 16:22 (nineteen years ago)

I never thought I'd write the following sentence, but here goes:

Fair play to the Mail on this — it's one of those tricky cases that doesn't really have a "winner", and rather than going off on some moral crusade they've just said, "fuck it, we don't know what to think."

Personally I think that, while it's all very sad, if the bloke doesn't want to have kiddies anymore he shouldn't be forced to. I suspect that if this was the other way around and the man was trying to seize embryos from the woman to give to someone else it would be a no-brainer.

XPost:

The bloke has said he doesn't want to be a father, and that even if she raised the kiddies with someone else he would still have his offspring roaming the world, and that one day they might want to meet their "real" daddy and what have you.

Where do people stand on anonymity for sperm donors, BTW?

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 16:25 (nineteen years ago)

Well, there were a great many donors that were anonymous, and at the time were assured that that would always be the way. Then the law changed, and now those donors are going "Oh god" every time the phone rings unexpectedly.

― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 16:26 (nineteen years ago)

yeah i also agree, on that basis. people have a right to change their minds for better or worse, for whatever reason. if one can abort for whatever reason then one can deny the use of an embryo created using their sperm. you don't have to like the donor's decision/reasons but you have to abide by them.

― Konal Doddz (blueski), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 16:29 (nineteen years ago)

well she can, as can anyone, but she wanted 'her own'.

http://www.doering.co.uk/doering/photos/moon_on_a_stick.jpg

life's a bitch, isn't it? i'm sorry, i really don't see the essentially selfish desire to propagate her own genes as even remotely worthy of my sympathy. if she's that desperate for a child, why can't she adopt? there are plenty of children out there who already exist and are desperate to be loved.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 16:44 (nineteen years ago)

yeah, i agree but that goes for absolutely everyone on this over-populated planet.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 16:46 (nineteen years ago)

oh god yes, absolutely. that rant is directed at the whole world, not just her.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 16:47 (nineteen years ago)

yeah I don't think bearing children is a right but it is quite a pressing biological 'imperative' and it can be hard to give that up. I think the court made the right decision though, sadly.

― Archel (Archel), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 16:49 (nineteen years ago)

> Snowflake Babies is an american rightwing fundie thing, where they adopt frozen embryos.

last night's CSI was about exactly this.

> Why didn't she get an anonymous donor?

the laws have recently changed here (i believe, heard something on radio 4) to stop people donating anonymously. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4397249.stm

― koogs (koogs), Wednesday, 8 March 2006 16:58 (nineteen years ago)

four years pass...

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4126/4999779884_c339a80955_o.jpg

― Duncan Donuts (Ned Trifle II), Friday, 17 September 2010 21:45 (fifteen years ago)

subtext of the year award

― former moderator, please give generously (DG), Friday, 17 September 2010 21:53 (fifteen years ago)

has any other paper changed so little? apart from daily mail readers not knowing what dvds were, it could be 1997

― Chinedu "Edu" Obasi Ogbuke (nakhchivan), Friday, 17 September 2010 21:57 (fifteen years ago)

Free Cliff Richard? I didn't know he was in prison...

― Les centimètres énigmatiques (snoball), Friday, 17 September 2010 21:58 (fifteen years ago)

This is perfect for the Mail. If you keep repeating made up stories about winterval, eventually someone in the Vatican will read it and the Pope'll bung it in a speech which can be reported by the Mail...

― Duncan Donuts (Ned Trifle II), Saturday, 18 September 2010 07:49 (fifteen years ago)

The headline kind of sounds like the title of that movie "Santa Claus Conquers The Martians".

― Les centimètres énigmatiques (snoball), Saturday, 18 September 2010 07:52 (fifteen years ago)

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l292/nashkitten/KissSavesSanta.jpg

― being a ringmaster's crul (DJ Mencap), Saturday, 18 September 2010 10:18 (fifteen years ago)

has any other paper changed so little?

Marginally less support for Hitler during this century.

― Anglophilia isn't a pathetic excuse for the previous post (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 18 September 2010 10:28 (fifteen years ago)

that's only cuz he won't return their phone calls these days

http://voiceoftheturtle.org/dictionary/dict_h1.php#hurrah

― Chinedu "Edu" Obasi Ogbuke (nakhchivan), Saturday, 18 September 2010 10:36 (fifteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.