Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:25PM   Printer-friendly
from the irreconcilable-differences dept.

A court battle between a divorced couple over the future of their frozen embryos began Monday with an attorney for the former husband accusing the woman of using the dispute to get money.

Dr. Mimi Lee, 46, a pianist and part-time anesthesiologist, married Stephen Findley, a wealthy executive, five years ago. Shortly before the wedding, Lee learned she had breast cancer.

Unsure whether the disease would make it impossible for her to have children, the couple went to a fertility center, where Lee's eggs and Findley's sperm created five embryos, now frozen.

Findley filed for divorce two years ago and wants the embryos destroyed. Lee, now infertile, wants to implant the embryos into a surrogate and have a baby. Without the embryos, she will never have a child who shares her genes.

If the embryos are implanted and carry to term, the ex-husband becomes a father without consent. If the embryos are destroyed, the ex-wife is denied the deep need to procreate. The embryos themselves have issues either way. Modern biomedical ethics are complex.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:33PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:33PM (#209619)

    We had to sign a paper indicating what we wanted done with the frozen eggs in various scenarios including death of one or more partners or divorce.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=1, Informative=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Kilo110 on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:59PM

    by Kilo110 (2853) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:59PM (#209642)

    The couple did this as well. They both agreed to destroy the eggs in case of divorce. The woman wants to renege.

    • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday July 16 2015, @03:42PM

      by Freeman (732) on Thursday July 16 2015, @03:42PM (#209991) Journal

      In which case, she should be granted the ability to have the children and he should not have to pay child support. Win / Win. The catch would be that he wouldn't have any rights over the children. Considering he wants to destroy them, that should be a fair deal.

      --
      Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
      • (Score: 2) by albert on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:02PM

        by albert (276) on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:02PM (#209998)

        The courts use "best interests of the child" as their standard and totally disregard any contracts.

        Fix that, and he might go along.

        His only other hope would be something insane like suing for damages equal to the child support. Good luck with that, hmmm? He's not going to take the gamble.

        • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:33PM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:33PM (#210018)

          The courts use "best interests of the child" as their standard and totally disregard any contracts.

          Another case where the "for the children" cries violates people's liberties and leads to nonsensical decisions.

          • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:55PM

            by Freeman (732) on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:55PM (#210037) Journal

            The child doesn't have a voice. The court is their voice. I wonder what your views are on Child Labor. Certainly working a child to the bone, but them actually having a chance of surviving is better than death.

            --
            Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
            • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @05:03PM

              by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday July 16 2015, @05:03PM (#210043)

              The child might not have a voice, but the ends don't justify the means. If the government cares about the child so much, then instead of making people in situations like these personally shell out the money to pay for them, they can pay for it themselves.

              But you seem to be an "the ends justify the means" person, where violating our principles, our constitution, and our fundamental liberties are all okay in the name of the children. Or you might be, but I suspect that you simply missed my point, given what you said about child labor. The "for the children" crowd is dangerous because they use emotional arguments about children to manipulate emotional suckers into supporting unjust policies that violate our rights and possibly the constitution. Same with terrorism. It's not merely about child support, either.

              • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday July 16 2015, @07:59PM

                by Freeman (732) on Thursday July 16 2015, @07:59PM (#210140) Journal

                Our fundamental liberties don't include killing children. The main ethical issue at hand is whether or not it is right for a person to kill an unborn child. Whether or not is is their own shouldn't make a difference. Thankfully, I live in a State that recognizes an unborn child as a person during all stages of development. You say the ends don't justify the means, but that makes no sense in the way you are describing it. The only rights that are being violated are of a person who is unable to defend themselves. Moving on to your comment about Terrorism. The Patriot Act was a clear violation of our personal freedoms. The equally labeled "Freedom Act" isn't much better. Both the Republicans and Democrats are at fault on both counts. Personally, I think it would have been a lot better, if the guards at our Airports started carrying Automatic Weapons. Instead of the whole, lets body scan everyone, and still miss pretty much everything, which does violate our right to privacy.

                --
                Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
                • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @09:29PM

                  by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday July 16 2015, @09:29PM (#210176)

                  Our fundamental liberties don't include killing children.

                  You seem to be referring to abortion. I'd say that while everyone has a right to life, no one has a right to inhabit someone else's body as a form of life support. They own their body, and since the right to control your own body is one of the most fundamental rights there is, they can evict you. Our fundamental liberties may not include killing children, but controlling our own bodies is a fundamental liberty, and no child's right to life is so important that they can override your right to control your own body, thereby turning you into a mere baby-making machine at the command of government thugs.

                  I don't know why you brought up abortion, but whatever. I was thinking more along the lines of more government surveillance to stop the child molester bogeymen.

                  The only rights that are being violated are of a person who is unable to defend themselves.

                  Like a woman would be defenseless against the overwhelming force of government violating her basic right to control her body. You've gone above and beyond merely disagreeing with abortion, to the point where it seems you think the government can take ownership of other people's bodies, and you think other people can use your body for life support no matter your feelings.

                  • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday July 16 2015, @09:38PM

                    by Freeman (732) on Thursday July 16 2015, @09:38PM (#210179) Journal

                    I am equating killing the embryo with abortion. In this case the woman actually wants to have the children, so the right of the woman to control her own body, isn't part of the equation. (She actually wants to use a Surrogate, but that's neither here nor there.) The right of the woman to control her own body is part of the reason why I am not vehemently against Pro Choice. The reality is that it's an extremely controversial issue with various complications.

                    --
                    Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
                    • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @10:07PM

                      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday July 16 2015, @10:07PM (#210186)

                      The real issue here is that there is no guarantee that the guy won't be forced to pay child support for some insane reason. Does someone have a right to force other people to impregnate them/be impregnated? If it were already in her body, I would agree about the issue of control, but it isn't. Not yet, anyway. And she signed an actual agreement, as well.

                      The reality is that it's an extremely controversial issue with various complications.

                      The NSA's mass surveillance is also apparently controversial. What a sad state of affairs this is for "the land of the free and the home of the brave".

                      • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday July 16 2015, @10:33PM

                        by Freeman (732) on Thursday July 16 2015, @10:33PM (#210199) Journal

                        The NSA's mass surveillance is possibly even worse than the Patriot Act or maybe just a symptom of it.

                        The right thing to do would be to allow her to have the child(ren) and to exempt him from child support. Though, as has been stated in the discussions, that isn't cut and dry either. The government could still go after him for child responsibilities even, if she signed an agreement stating that he was off the hook. Though, that would only likely happen, if she were to need financial assistance from the government.

                        --
                        Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
                        • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @10:35PM

                          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday July 16 2015, @10:35PM (#210202)

                          The potential child support is really the issue for me. It wouldn't matter if she had the child otherwise.

                          Though, that would only likely happen, if she were to need financial assistance from the government.

                          Happens all the time.

  • (Score: 1) by hedleyroos on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:09AM

    by hedleyroos (4974) on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:09AM (#209795)

    Hey, this is not the green site. You're supposed to rtfa😛