TheBigMan

Some of the responses on this thread have been somewhat unnecessary. For example "evil" and "bitches" etc. As such those responses will be treated with the contempt they deserve.

I think we need to quantify who is actually in the wrong here. As far as I can tell, nobody is in the wrong, nobody has indeed done wrong. It is quite simply a horrible situation.

As this case has gone to the courts, there can be no room for sentiment. It is a good thing that the decision making body has no first hand experience of this - as that would hamper their impartiality;therefore compromise the decision making process.

Yes, it is a womans right to have a child; BUT this is only a right if that right doesn't intrinse on the rights of the male in the equation. Consent from the male is equally as important as consent from the female. Whether she (the woman in question) likes that or not. It is a simple case that if the male in this does not wish to have a child he should in no way be forced into doing so. The fact it has gone to court is desperation on her part - understandable perhaps but wrong never the less. Not knowing either party we can't know everything about this, however listening to the comments by the male he seemed quite level headed in the fact that he does not want to have a child - especially with a woman he no longer has affection for.

Oh, and the comments of "if they sign something saying he has nowt to do with the kid financially and otherwise" is utter rubbish and shows ignorance on the part of whoever suggests that as a viable scenario.

If this woman won this case far more "rights" would have been broken than with the current outcome.

Dream Weaver

I thnk people need to stop going on about rights, its a term thats been made up in the last 10 years by solicitors and the like.

Humans dont really have any rights, we just exist on aplanet that is much bigger than each of us, and will be here much longer.

We want children, but if we cant for whatever reason, then we will look at adoption. We would be sad, but we're strong enought to see the positives.

Davyboy - are you entirely serious in your posts, they are coming across as Apologies if you are.

TheBigMan

Exactly. Options is probably a better term.

Leslie

Davyboy,

I cannot see why you say I was sitting on the fence when I gave an opinion on the judges' verdict. And I don't retract what I said just before that.

Les

Holy Ghost

**

friendly riposte: which & where brendan? how can a single person unattached person have a "right to a family". you either can, can't, do or don't. it's not a question of "rights" - it's a question of biological/medical capability and personal choice (adoption/fostering notwithstanding).

sure this case is complex as it involves frozen embryos and a broken-down relationship - BUT if the guy has withdrawn his consent, then he's withdrawn his consent and he cannot be legally compelled to change his mind against his will - no matter how much emotional blackmail is applied (that is not supported in law). the same would apply if the roles were reversed. now that IS enshrined in the IVF legislation.

feel free to correct me but it sounds like EU-dribble and/or or meaningless "rights-based" PC **** to me.

;-)

TheBigMan

It is not a womans right to have a child.

I really dislike feministic drivvle like that - it also tars all women with the same brush, unfairly. As a result, people think all women think are like this, prompting the "bitch" and "evil" comments.

Women can have children, and in some circumstances science has assisted when nature has failed us.

In this instance however, the woman has no rights whatsoever - and as the male in question does not wish to be a father with a woman he no longer has relations with her options are somewhat limited. Not nice for her, I won't pretend to know how bad it must be but if the male does not wish to have a child then it's the end of the road.

OllyK

There was quite an interesting Disptaches program not long ago, and it explained some of the "rights" confusion between the UK and Europe. Much of Europe had been under Napoleonic dictatorship where you could not do anything unless the right to do so was granted. In the UK, the Bill of Rights works the other way, in that you can pretty much do what you like unless expressly forbidden.

So "the right" to have a child is there for all women, in that is has not been expressly forbidden, but then so is the right for a man to have a child, despite the biological problems associated with that right.

davyboy

I am not joking about cancer, I was diagnosed with Hodgkins when I was 20.

Holy Ghost

**

hence the "right" in our IVF legislation for either partner to withdraw their consent, ergo withdraw the right.

this is a perfect example of the current struggle in primacy of law in this country - which holds sway? democratically-passed UK laws or undemocratically-passed EU "equivalents" that are foisted on us and abused by the legal community?

TheBigMan

In response to the thread title : He must really hate her!

I'd summarize, from the BBC story that "he chooses to not have a child with a woman he no longer cares for".

Hate is strong word!!

davyboy

I'd have to hate an ex partner to stop her only chance of having her "own" child.

I'd be quite happy in most cases just to become a "donor".

TheBigMan

When you're a donor - you wak off into a beaker and go home.

....this is slightly different.

davyboy

well....they are helping infertile couple have a baby.

This man could also help........so in effect it's the same.

Holy Ghost

**

i disagree. it'd be your child regardless. you would be the father. with all the moral, emotional and financial responsibilities that brings.

why should he be coerced against his will (and against the law) to allow her to attempt to have his child? it's a monstrous thought: he's not an anonymous sperm bank donor. it's not about hate. he doesn't want to father a child with a woman he is no longer with nor loves.

plus, a personal agreement between this guy and his wife that he has no ties to the child would not be legally binding - the CSA would have the right to pursue if directed to do so.

davegtt

Difference he has links to the Donee (that the correct term?) And your forgetting people have a choice if they want to be a doner, you suggesting this bloke shouldnt have that choice?

Brendan Hughes

Not sure I get your point. First you said no-one can have a right to a family. They can, it's enshrined in various constitutions, EU or otherwise. If you're now saying that no single unmarried infertile person can have a right to a family, then that's a fair qualification with which I don't argue. But there are a sh!tload of cases all about that right - frequently involving criminal immigrants, a favourite topic of NSR. As far as I'm concerned, if a right isn't written into a law of constitutional status, it's not worth talking about - if it is, then it's as much a right as anything else you want to quote, and probably more so.

BTW, Human Rights Convention was Council of Europe, nothing to do with EU and simply adopted by them as a standard already agreed by 40-odd countries, but doubtless that won't spoil your fun

Sorry, but as a lawyer, people's bandying about of the word "right" pisses me off sometimes.

BTW, can you stop banging on about undemocratically-foisted laws like all the other taxi drivers here. They're approved by UK government ministers who, if they don't agree with them, don't approve them. (If you're going to then get pedantic about 28% of the population voting Labour or whatever, that's different.)

Crapaud62

Interesting thread.

If you are of the opinion that life is created at the point that the Embryo was "made" then he has already given his consent to the creation of the embryo. Not clear in law as to how far down the line the male has the right to change his mind. Its not like he was tricked into the embryo being created.
I'm just thinking if it had been a conventional conception and afterwards the male changes his mind about being a father, then he doesn't have the right to insist that the woman has an abortion. This situation can and does happen where woman says she is on pill but tricks guy into getting her pregnant. In that case, its though luck for father as baby is on way and there is nothing he can do.

Comlex case but I think that as he gave his original consent for the embryo to be created and it was created and then frozen, I don't see how he can be allowed to change his mind after the event. How is this different from forcing an early abortion? OK, many will say "its only an embryo" but from a point of law, when does an embryo get rights?
Perhaps I don't fully understand the biology here, but she is just wanted the embryo to be implanted in her?
If he is so against it, then he should not have consented to the creation of the embryo in the first place.

Leslie

Davyboy,

I agree with Holy Ghost's point incidentally.

I see you can't bring yourself to reply to my post above then!

Les

davyboy

I've nothing to say in response to your reply, thats why.

TheBigMan

If this was the case, consent had already been given by means of trying for a baby.

This case is not complex whatsoever.

The man has a choice. He is to be commended if he allows her to use the embryo, likewise he should be respected and not victimised for not.

Holy Ghost

**

i stand corrected.

i am also a godawful pedant - the initial EU law is undemocratic as i don't have a say in electing EU commissioners - they're not elected, they're politically appointed. simply giving a Westminster stamp rubber stamp to EU laws is merely a sloppy-second, democratic fig leaf that validates the invalid.

plus, we all know that our minority government is in thrall to the EU and approves the garbage the EU produces with a sickening, thoughtless regularity that is gradually strangling us with red tape - all in the spirit of napoleonic consistency.

in case you think i'm in favour of leaving the EU, i'm not at all. the franco-german axis just needs booting into shape by someone with *****. plus ca change.

pardon the digression ...

Tiggs

davyboy.....how many childen do you have?

DrEvil

Personally I think Dr Wilks summed it up quite well.

davyboy

...and the relevance being..........?

Dream Weaver

A donor is anonymous, so could never be contacted, and wouldnt know who had had a kid using their sperm if it was used at all.

This is very different, not anonymous at all, and he would know where the kid was.

TheBigMan

Exactly. He would know everything that a Father knows - not a donor.

Lest we all forget the child in all this - might be a little bemused at his/her reasons for existence; the resultant of a court case, nice.

Markus

davyboy,
Just to clarify things. If you were in this chaps position, you would have no problem whatsoever with your ex using embryo's from when you were together to have a child? One assumes Clare doesn't have a problem with this either?

Would you want any further contact with the mother and/or child? Would you want the child to know who it's father is? Would you want the child to meet your kids (not sure if you have kids or not), would you have any problems explaining to your kids about their sibling and how they came to be?

TheBigMan

The relationship is over.

It is no better than asking a total stranger to give sperm, then give them every detail of you and your child.

Come to think of it, no it is worse!! If you said no you wouldn't be treated like a nasty bar-steward like this fella is!!

Beginning to feel sorry for this guy big time now. The poor sod, he doesn't want a child and he's being verbally battered for it!!!

Madness.

OllyK

On a slightly different note, I found this quite interesting:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4789090.stm

TheBigMan

My first instinct is there are 2 issues here.

1. The social aspect.

2. The moral aspect.

By this I mean: I have sympathy for a man that is forced to pay towards a child that he did not want. On the other hand a ruling that would mean men no longer contributed would create a massive social issue with regards to benefits, women in employment etc.

Can of worms or what.....