I was sitting here and had a sick, depraved thought.... but it came to me non-the-less. What would happen if a man died and his wife was so saddened by the loss she demanded they take his sperm, let's say 1-2 hours later, so that she could still have his child later on? What would this mean for everyone involved and is it normal? Is it sick? Do you agree or disagree it can be done?
It could be done...only immediately...and I don't necessarily think it's sick, no. I do work in a facility in which they take onsite tissue donations from freshly-deceased registered donors. I do get to see the eye recovery in progress occasionally, if I have a reason to go by there.
Why is it “sick and depraved”? This situation has already occurred. Here in Australia there was a recent court case where a widow was granted permission to conceive a child using sperm extracted from her deceased husband. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/23/3224212.htm The interesting factor in this case was the apparent clear consent by the man to donate sperm just prior to his untimely death. If no such prior consent could be demonstrated in court then I get the feeling that it's less likely that a widow would win permission to use the sperm.
i dont see why HR, the odd thing about the whole thing is you have no right to concent to what happens to your body after death. You can will away everything you own in whatever manner you deam fit but you have no control over your own remains. This comes up in organ donation, it doesnt matter how many pieces of paper you sign saying you do\dont want to be an organ donor its still up to your next of kin and that for me would be PB and for her would be me.
What would be the considerations if the roles were reversed? If the man wanted to have some of the woman's eggs harvested to be fertilized by his sperm and use of a surrogate mother? What if love and/or sadness was less the motive, than that they had selected each other with special consideration for their combined genetic potential, and then she had suddenly met with an accident.....yet medical science held the potential for them to keep their date with destiny..... Perhaps my neighbor, a much published writer for a well known romance novel company can do something with this story line....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This issue came up in a radio discussion of the Australian case i was lissoning to. The amussing thing was once you started talking about eggs insted of sperm women started having a problem with it. Personally i could care less either way. The fact of the matter is there are sperm and egg banks so we accept that its fine for people to have children without it being the genetic material of the people involved and why should it be more wrong because the donor is dead. Further more we alow single women to use IVF and its very likly that men will be able to use surogcy once the laws are finalised. Lastly we already know that your body doesnt belong to you, it belongs to your next of kin. These 3 things put together mean its quite acceptable for sperm\eggs\embroys to be used after death. The only limit is physical, ie eggs would have to have already been donated rather than being harvsted at death and men would oviously either need a new partner or to use surgocy.
What would you tell your son? Your father was dead and never fucked me we just cheated and took his sperm?
Do you think lack of sex is the only situation that could lead to a widow requesting sperm be recovered? What if they were a young couple and they had always been using protection? Maybe at the time he met his end, they weren't ready to be parents and thus had made the choice to not have children. What if there were other issues that prevented them from having children while he was alive? I don't see how this could be considered sick.
