Re: Woman Loses Frozen Embryo Battle
- From: Phyllis Nilsson <phyllisnilsson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:10:59 -0500
They both were apprised of the law going into this or it couldn't have been done to begin with. This sort of situation is exactly why the law was written as it was; so that one person alone could not have the children without the consent of both. If the positions were reversed, and he wanted the children, the law wouldn't let him have them either without her permission.
I agree that a man should have control of how his sperm is used. As sad as this may be for her, there are thousands of women who cannot have their own children and find adoption a satisfactory solution. Maybe she will become another Mother Teresa and do good throughout the world because she doesn't have a family of her own to take her time and talents.
Sandi wrote:
.
Errr, but, isn't it the exact same thing as a woman deciding not to follow through with a pregnancy? The man is rejecting the potential children in exactly the same way. Sure, they're not in his body, but in this particular instance, why would the woman get to decide everything?
Would you say the same thing about karma if a woman refused to have a man's child because they were no longer together, over the man's objections?
Sandi
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Woman Loses Frozen Embryo Battle
- From: jmorngstar
- Re: Woman Loses Frozen Embryo Battle
- References:
- Woman Loses Frozen Embryo Battle
- From: Su
- Re: Woman Loses Frozen Embryo Battle
- From: The Other Kim
- Re: Woman Loses Frozen Embryo Battle
- From: jmorngstar
- Re: Woman Loses Frozen Embryo Battle
- From: Sandi
- Woman Loses Frozen Embryo Battle
- Prev by Date: Re: Woman Loses Frozen Embryo Battle
- Next by Date: Re: Two weeks and counting
- Previous by thread: Re: Woman Loses Frozen Embryo Battle
- Next by thread: Re: Woman Loses Frozen Embryo Battle
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|