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 Freeman on Thursday July 16 2015, @09:38PM
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
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
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
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.