not sure where this should be posted so here will do.. Two women have lost their High Court battle to use their frozen embryos against the will of their former partners. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3151762.stm what does everyone think...?
“Custody battle over un-born children?” Don’t the women usually win custody battles? well it is a legislative problem the law should be change so that the embryo can be fought over like it were a child and no this should not go into a slippery slope into give more embryonic rights (like making abortions illegal).
It would only make an abortion illegal if the father of the embryo/fetus wanted it stopped - it wouldn't be generalised to all abortions.
The fate of the fetus inside the woman should be left up to the woman. It is her choice whether to continue to be a host to the parasite. The man has nothing to with it.
Yes but what about a embryo that is not in a womb? Who should have the custody rights? I think that’s a major difference a embryo in a womb is the women’s rights and can be aborted if she wants to no say of the father, but a embryo out of the womb could be separated from abortion laws and rights and custody could be fought over.
agreed, inside the womb, the female is a serviceprovider, giving her more rights, outside is for the highest bidderPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think the responsability would go to whomever was paying to keep the fetus in cold storage. I mean it should be their legal property is it not? This brings up an interesting question. Could (or should) a person be able to copyright their own DNA? That is the only way I can understand how the man might have a say as to what the woman does with his genes. I mean he obviously already donated it. Once it is out of his body, what makes it any different from anyone elses - unless it is legally protected by copyright. - KitNyx
Why should he give a dam its only his child genetically he does not need to take part in rising it, it equivalent to sperm bank donating.
In theory he shouldn't. But he'd probably want to be informed whether or not a child of his is being brought to this world.
I don't see the point. It's not like the man is going to be any worse off if this becomes a kid. The only issue is who owns the embryo. This should have been handled in the divorce.
The problem is, the mom might later on want child support and stuff like that. It wouldn't be fair, but a DNA test is still used in such cases when a guy denies paternity. So, like you said, these little details should be settled a priori, but the court decisions should go into deep detail.