from the does-GPL-cover-genetic-code-department dept.
Surrogacy is an option for having children, but with this new possibility come new ethical dilemmas as well. In order to improve the odds of implanted embryos, two or three are often implanted in the surrogate. Bringing multiples to term carries a number of risks so when the father-to-be wants a "selective reduction" done who has the right to deny or impose the process?
The 47-year-old Californian had agreed to be a surrogate for a 50-year-old postal worker in Georgia, and she became pregnant last year with three boys. But then, she said later in a lawsuit, the man expressed concerns about his dwindling finances and about the health of the babies. He asked her to undergo "selective reduction" to eliminate one of the embryos.
She filed a lawsuit to keep all three alive, and has also filed for custody of them. The three were born via Caesarian on February 22nd and are all underweight. WSB Radio reports she has asked the courts to rule her 75-page contract unenforceable so that she will be protected from the consequences of breaching it.
At what point does someone else's genetic material and offspring become the surrogate's? Or has she breached her contract and in doing so, harmed the three infants?
Related Stories
Mitsutoki Shigeta: 'Baby factory' dad wins paternity rights
A Bangkok court has awarded paternity rights to a Japanese man over 13 babies he fathered through Thai surrogate mothers. The ruling allows Mitsutoki Shigeta, 28, to pursue custody of the children.
The son of a wealthy entrepreneur, he caused controversy in 2014 when he was revealed to have fathered at least 16 babies via surrogates in Thailand. His so-called "baby factory" case and others led to Thailand banning commercial surrogacy for foreigners.
Mr Shigeta, who was not present at the trial, was awarded "sole parent" rights after the Thai surrogates forfeited their rights, according to the court, which did not name him.
"For the happiness and opportunities which the 13 children will receive from their biological father, who does not have a history of bad behaviour, the court rules that all 13 born from surrogacy to be legal children of the plaintiff," Bangkok's Central Juvenile Court said in a statement.
Related: Medical Ethics of Multiples, Surrogacy, and Abortion
Woman can use donor sperm in IVF without estranged husband's consent, court rules
A Victorian woman will not need her estranged husband's permission to undergo IVF using donor sperm following a ruling by the federal court in Melbourne. The court heard that the woman, who cannot be named, has been separated and living apart from her husband since late 2017. The woman wanted to try to conceive through IVF using donor sperm, but was told by a Melbourne reproductive clinic that under Victoria's Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act she first needed her husband's consent.
The matter was urgent because the woman is 45 and patients are generally only able to use their own eggs in an IVF procedure when they are younger than 46. The woman said she recently underwent a procedure to collect her eggs and freeze them for later use after she was divorced, but was told the prospect of a successful pregnancy using frozen eggs was lower than IVF using fresh eggs. The clinic told her that with her husband's consent, she could begin a round of treatment later in September.
[...] Under the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act, there is a guiding principle that "the welfare and interests of persons born or to be born as a result of treatment procedures are paramount". But the court heard that this should not justify requiring the consent of a former partner who, without such consent, would have no responsibility for the child anyway.
Federal court Justice John Griffiths ordered that the woman could undergo IVF without consent and that the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act discriminated against her on the basis of her marital status. He declared that part of the law "invalid and inoperable". In his judgment published on Friday, Griffiths said nothing in his ruling was intended to harm the reputation of the woman's estranged husband and that the decision would not directly affect his legal rights, and that he would not be imputed with any parental rights, obligations or responsibilities.
See also: Parents likely to block girlfriend's attempt to access sperm from dead son (2016)
Related: Bioethicist Recommends Freezing Sperm to Lessen Genetic Risks
Divorced Couple Fighting in Court over Frozen Embryos
Medical Ethics of Multiples, Surrogacy, and Abortion
Deceased Dutch Fertility Clinic Doctor's Belongings to be DNA Tested
Japanese Man Granted Paternity Rights to 13 Children Born to Surrogate Mothers
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @03:58AM
We'll have a nice interesting and insighful conversation, free from trolls and political grandstanding, about a topic with abortion in the title.
In other news, I saw a Unicorn feeding cotton candy to Bigfoot this afternoon...
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday March 15 2016, @04:15AM
... Son, son, you've gone too far.
'Cause smokin' and trippin' is all that you do.
Yeeeaah!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @05:00AM
Breach births are always the most difficult.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @05:11AM
Cracks are never easy
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Tuesday March 15 2016, @08:40AM
He should have encrypted his sperm with his iPhone. Then she couldn't unlock the newborns without his passcode.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Non Sequor on Tuesday March 15 2016, @04:14AM
I think I read a solution to this kind of custody problem in the Bible.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday March 15 2016, @04:34AM
Unfortunately, the Biblical method was to split the kid into two with the sword... turns out in this case, that's exactly what the plaintiff had in mind.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @10:42AM
Unfortunately, the Biblical method was to split the kid into two with the sword... turns out in this case, that's exactly what the plaintiff had in mind.
Exactly.
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Tuesday March 15 2016, @10:56AM
A kid and a half each would actually be a compromise though.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Tuesday March 15 2016, @12:58PM
Actually, the 'half-kid' could be a advantage.
Now all of those 'half-pairs' of socks and mittens can be put to good use!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Tuesday March 15 2016, @04:17AM
An economic abortion or the right to legally waive rights to the children would really solve this case neatly. It's not ideal, but it would mean that the woman carrying the child could decide to abort the fetuses or be their legal mother without needing permission from the people who provided the genetic materials.
Now, that's not going to solve cases where the woman carrying the fetus objects to abortion, but doesn't want to have children, but it would solve this situation. It would also solve those cases where women decide to force men into economic servitude because they don't believe in abortion and the methods used for preventing the pregnancy turned out to be insufficient.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday March 15 2016, @04:26AM
The father could give up his rights, but it doesn't seem likely now the triplets are born. Prior cases have also seen emotionally-powered legal battles.
There's a move on in Sweden to allow fathers to opt-out of fatherhood [thelibertarianrepublic.com] which is being criticized by women's groups there.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday March 15 2016, @09:14AM
Not quite where to insert some serious discussion on this topic. But seeing how it involves "fatherhood", this seems as good a place as any.
Preamble: Often times in discussion of cloning, I find students have the opinion that clones would not have souls. Now on the one hand, this is silly pre-modern supernatural mumbo-jumbo and argle-bargle jiggery-pokery, as a recently dead (and so sign of a soul so far!) US Supreme Court Justice would say. But on the other hand, common sense perceptions do clue us in to the connotations of concepts. The obvious comeback is that if clones do not have souls, what are we to say about identical twins? Clones are only identical twins that have a significant time difference between birthdays.
Alright, into the thick of it! Surrogate mothers, if they are doing it for money, are whores. Egg donors, if yadayada, whores. Sperm donors, same shit. I want to say, listen up all you whores and intellectual property right pimps! You got paid! You own nothing! It was all "work for hire"! So put your alleged authorship back in your pants. A person, in this case a baby, is in no regard the property of anyone, unless you are going to revisit that nastyness between the Union and the scum-egg-yellow-bellied Traitors of the Confederacy. And you would lose. The South Will Lose, Again!
But that is not important now. What is important is Rome, and the Cohen Brothers movie, "Oh Brother Wherefore Art Thou?". Do you recall the plot? Some say it was a retelling of Homer's Odysseus, and maybe it was, but I just want to pick out a small part of the film, one that relates to Roman practice. In the film, George Clooney's character escapes from prison only to find his wife being courted by another man. But that is also not important now. What is is his repeated insistence that he is the "paterfamilias". Now any Roman lawyer, say, like Cicero, would immediately know what this meant. Under Roman law, fathers (paters) where not just the head of household, they were in essence the household. This meant , for one thing, and the one that comes up in the Cohen Bros. film where all the children are tied together like slaves, that the rest of the family were property to the paterfamilias. Under Roman law, a father could sell his children into slavery, or in a Monty Python Northern Ireland (look it up for yourself, you slogs! "Meaning of Life" Part something, birth, just before the "every sperm is sacred" musical number) for medical research.
Conclusion: We no longer thinkthat genetic contribution amounts to a hill of beans. Yes, you could jack off into a cup, but who couldn't? What with Nurse Nancy to help? (Did I mention that "she" is trans? It's all for the cause!!) Same for ova. Women are dumping them unused all the time. And gestation? Well, yes, nine months is a bit more of an investment of time. Enough to give ownership to the spawn? I say not. Solomon was right, as some in this thread have noted. The real parents of a child, the ones who deserve not ownership but custody, are the ones who parent, who nurture, protect, educate, raise, and otherwise allow a baby to become the person it has the potential to be _without_ _ever_ _once_ laying any claim to said person. Parent are the ones who let their children be free. That is all.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday March 15 2016, @10:46AM
Thankyou for that barely on-topic ramble. A small correction:
a Monty Python Northern Ireland ... "Meaning of Life" ... just before the "every sperm is sacred"...)
It were Yorkshire lad, not Ireland.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @01:09PM
Possibly related to the majority Catholic ruling class in Ireland? I suspect the poster meant the Republic though...
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday March 15 2016, @02:24PM
Poster can mean what he likes, but the sketch is set in Yorkshire. Which is not in Ireland.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday March 15 2016, @10:50PM
I stand corrected, in Yorkshire. Now for something completely different.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @04:31AM
Boy, have I seen a *lot* of *that*!
Add alcohol, and a "night on the town" becomes a contract to support someone else for the rest of their life.
One thing I have observed... most men will fly into a vagina with the same reckless abandon a moth will fly into a fire.
Men are really dumb... and women know it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday March 15 2016, @04:33PM
Add alcohol, and a "night on the town" becomes a contract to support someone else for the rest of their life.
A contract to support the child you created? Sorry, can't feel the outrage there. It's called a condom and it's not very difficult.
Personal responsibility isn't just for poor people.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday March 17 2016, @02:43AM
Add alcohol, and a "night on the town" becomes a contract to support someone else for the rest of their life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4a6I1bJtBg/ [youtube.com]
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @06:27AM
The world is choking in people and there are plenty of kids lacking parents.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @12:49PM
That's what comes to my mind every time I read articles like this. However some people just can't seem to love a child that didn't pop out of their own body or are just so adamant about "continuing the family line" as if genetics are everything. There's plenty of ways to leave a legacy that don't involve procreating.
(Score: 1) by an Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @04:19PM
Well, I believe in evolution more than I believe in platitudes others profess, but do not follow. The same could be said for couples I might add, but for some reason the blinders on are on there. Additionally, I do not see the benefit to helping a child that likely caries genes associated with impulsivity and irresponsibility succeed. So, I can see why others would do similarly.
Maybe, it's my skepticism kicking in.
Also, don't adoption agencies still discriminate against single men because the usual horseshit?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday March 16 2016, @07:56PM
Well, I believe in evolution
What does that even mean? You do realize that evolution isn't a sentient being and doesn't pass moral judgment upon you, right? If you merely meant that evolution occurs, then I agree. However, it seems more like you were referring to evolution as some kind of belief system, which is utter nonsense.
Additionally, I do not see the benefit to helping a child that likely caries genes associated with impulsivity and irresponsibility succeed.
And you don't think the environment you live in has an effect on one's personality? It's not all about genetics. Furthermore, unless you're a genius, your own genetics probably aren't all that great either.
Maybe, it's my skepticism kicking in.
You don't seem very skeptical about mindlessly following primitive instincts and then seemingly justifying that by anthropomorphizing evolution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @10:12PM
The obvious purpose of our existence is continuation of our creators, the genes. To that end we have embedded impulses to sustain ourselves and then procreate (as well as some other less important activities). Also, I could probably win money if I'd wager that in your part of the world there is probably a shortage of humans or at least not an excessive overpopulation. Abstaining from having your own kids does nothing for the overpopulation problem. At best, in the long run it would cause your weird self-hating culture to vanish and get replaced with some other which doesn't have that kind of scruples and will not work on your goals. To further your end, keep your numbers stable and stand your ground.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 16 2016, @12:10PM
Cold logic combined with myopic event horizon will only get you so far. Do you know that the rate of survival was higher for the jews who resisted being taken to concentration camps? That despite the rational choice (very short term) every single was following Nazi orders. (wear this arm patch, get on that train... or be shot)
If and when the people in the developing countries are multiplying like rabbits, all the more reason for reasonable people to choose not to. Besides one person in a developed country will use more resources than 1000 people in a developing country, which is the real problem.
I wouldn't call it self hate as much as love for the planet. I realize this is not something for everybody.
Sometimes when a grenade is thrown into the middle of the bunker one guy can save the entire squad by jumping onto it. Takes some balls though.
You won your wager by the way.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday March 16 2016, @07:58PM
The obvious purpose of our existence is continuation of our creators, the genes.
Why is that obvious? Evolution is simply something that occurs; it is not a being that judges you and decides your life's purpose. Decide yourself what you wish to do.
It is true that most people possess instincts that make them wish to reproduce, but that doesn't mean that's their "purpose".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by shortscreen on Tuesday March 15 2016, @08:40AM
So, these old farts blew a bunch of money on an elective medical procedure, blew more money on lawyers/litigation, and made asses of themselves such that I am now reading about it on SN. Maybe the dad will be able to put his financial worries behind him when he releases his next book entitled "How to Fail at Being Parents Before You Even Begin."
What I find most surprising is that the surrogate was a 47-year-old woman. I guess 50 is over the hill, but 47 is still prime child bearing age? A car analogy comes to mind. "Gee, maybe I shouldn't tow this 3-ton trailer with my Geo Metro. I'll borrow the neighbor's Ford Escort instead."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @09:54AM
Yup, the Escort could eventually (pant cough wheeze) do the job; whereas, that GM piece of crap could only tow very much smaller (tiny) pieces of (hamster-sized) crap. Trailers of any size would be out of the question. Analogy impregnated.
(Score: 1) by OrugTor on Tuesday March 15 2016, @04:24PM
Indeed, my first thought was what scumbag/idiot fertility service impregnated a 47-year-old? Insanity.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Tuesday March 15 2016, @02:26PM
if you have fertility problems, adopt a child. there is no need for this kind of bullshit.
(Score: 1) by an Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @04:03PM
Yeah, men that want to be the genetic father of the child they devote their adult lives to are just greedy. *cough*
(Score: 2) by bootsy on Tuesday March 15 2016, @02:57PM
The quote I like the best is "Every baby deserves the right to be loved".
If a potential child is unwanted and won't be loved or looked after ( not necessarily by the original parents ) then maybe a termination is the best way in the first trimester.
Having had experience of a Neonatal ward for a number of years there has to be a cut off gestation for termination as neonates can survive from 22-23 weeks ( not all though and they often have problems but once you've seen them at this gestation you won't agree with late termination unless there is a serious genetic or developmental defect ).
Following this logic ( and the gestation of the babies at the time ) then they should be allowed to be kept although who is then responsible for providing for them becomes an interesting question.
The argument to terminate one to increase the chances of the others is also another side to this. That is an almost impossible call for a doctor to make. You can lay out statistics of survival and inform parents but I've seen multiple tuplets kept and they have all died and I have read about selective termination only for the remaining foetus not to go to full term or die soon after birth. Devastating for the parents involved. Even if it does make statistical sense to terminate then which one do you pick? It's not obvious which one has the better chance, it isn't always the biggest.
Lastly, if you carry a child in your womb it will send out stems cells and patch up the body. That means you will have DNA in your body that isn't yours and it is detectable. If a women is carrying a boy that means she will end up with some male stems cells in her. This is proposed as one of the reasons that women who have had children live longer and healthier than those who don't even accounting for the abuse the female body takes during the whole process.
This means this surrogate actually has some of the father's DNA inside her. She has been changed physically so does that give her any more rights?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by an Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @04:00PM
He's still on the hook for child support and doesn't get to be the father?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @11:14PM
If he'd gotten a uterus transplant and carried the pregnancies himself, he wouldn't have those problems.