SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday July 16 2015, @02:05AM
Yes, and it's also probably the most hardwired urge we have. That goes about double for women. You haven't seen crazy until you a see a childless, single woman hit 40 and her biological clock goes shproing!
It's of course possible to both satisfy that drive and address overpopulation by having every woman have an average of fewer than 2.33 children (the replacement level of fertility [wikipedia.org]).
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:48AM
Teenage boy's desire to have sex with every woman available for the foreseeable future or 40 year old woman's desire to have sex with one man...
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:48AM
Yes, and it's also probably the most hardwired urge we have.
That most of us have, anyway.
And look where that has got us. Horrible overpopulation. Frankly, if you can't control yourself, you are weak and inconsequential.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:03PM
I know right, because you always hear about how children are starving in the streets in First World Countries. Oh..., right, You Don't, because we have things like Homeless Shelters, Food Banks, and Soup Kitchens. The main problem is that there is extreme poverty in areas where there isn't much else to do except have children and try to survive. Also, if you are in extreme poverty, having kids can spread the burden out. Assuming those kids make it to adulthood.
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, @04:24PM
I know right, because you always hear about how children are starving in the streets in First World Countries. Oh..., right, You Don't, because we have things like Homeless Shelters, Food Banks, and Soup Kitchens.
I'm not quite seeing your point. It could be worse, so it's not bad? Interesting straw man you had there, as well.
We need a global population decline and a change in attitude. Reducing poverty will help with this, but that alone might not be good enough.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:57PM
My point is that reducing the population in First World Countries won't help the Countries in Extreme Poverty. Also, the countries in extreme poverty don't see a need to reduce their procreation.
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, @04:59PM
We should try to help there as well, certainly. But I never suggested otherwise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18 2015, @11:59AM
I think it is disgraceful that supposedly first world countries need things like homeless shelters, food banks and soup kitchens. I think modern society still has a long way to go before it is truly civilised.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:52PM
Did you miss the part where people can have children and still have populations go down? You don't need to have zero children for overpopulation to recede. You just need to have fewer than 2.33 per woman.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @05:09PM
I must have missed the event where most people decided to be more selfless, more rational, and more coordinated.
Well, we probably don't necessarily need that to happen. The right policies and the right conditions could help bring what you say about.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday July 16 2015, @05:23PM
More education and career opportunities for women seems to do the trick, too. Reference the declining birth rates of most industrialized countries.
Washington DC delenda est.