I am watching The Today Show right now. They just showed a case that is going on in Texas. A woman and a man had their embryo's frozen so they could use them at a later time. Well the couple signed a consent form to freeze them. Now they have both gotten divorced and the woman wants to impregnate herself with these embryo's. I have no idea why should would want to be impregnated with embryo's from someone she is divorced from. In Texas there is a law that says one can be impregnated by another man's sperm and he does not have to be the father. But the man is against this (which he has every right to be) because he does not believe it is right to bring a child into this world by two people who are not together and are divorced so he does not want this to happen. Well this case could be going to court and one of them would win. Who do you think should win?
Answers:
I think that she has the right to get pregnant, but not by his sperm if he doesn't want to be a father yet. Who knows this could have been the reason behind the divorce. I also think that after all this that he should at least pay for the harvesting of some more eggs and having them fertilized by a donor, then she can get them implanted. I think that would be fair on both parties. That way the guy has no part in it, and the girl gets pregnant. With the other embryos they can donate them anonymously to a couple that is in need and not be responsible for them, and not throwing them away.
I think that the man should win. He gave up his sperm for his wife not to be a sperm donor. Besides men are paid to be sperm donors.
As long as we concern ourselves with this kind of trivia (it's their own choices), we miss the bigger picture of what is really going on in the world that is important.
First, an analogy. When a an engagement ring is given, it is given with the expectation that the couple will marry. If the marriage is called off, the ring should be returned since the goal was not attained.
In the case of the frozen sperm, the pact was between two people who had every expectation of raising any resulting offspring together. Since that will not be the case, the sperm should not be used. The man should win the case.
I'm, with the father / ex husband on this one. I'm actually surprised that this is still an issue. It came up in another case a few years ago. If I ran a fertility clinic and wanted to avoid getting caught in the middle of a situation like this I would have the couple decide before the treatment began what would be done in case of divorce. It would be in writing and legally binding.
The man should win. They did this when they were together and now that there not together he should definatley have a say about this.
the verdict should be in favor of the woman who is the defendent and the man is the plantiff.
she has every right to do what she feels is right for her.
So why isn't the woman just getting another donor?
I don't think she should win. If she so wanted his kid then at least stay with him, not divorce him then decide she wants his sperm. What she is doing just seems wrong. If she did all this now what is to keep her from doing the same thing to another man.
Of course on the other hand why the divorce was he hurting her, abuse or other, in some way, if that is the case take them and run.
Actually, the matter is one of contract law.
In Roman v. Roman, a case of first impression in Texas, Houston's 1st Court of Appeals considered the merits of a property division in a divorce proceeding decided by Lisa Millard, presiding judge of the 310th District Court in Harris County. Millard had awarded three frozen embryos to the wife as part of a "just and right" division of community property, despite the parties' prior written agreement to discard frozen embryos in the event of divorce.
Texas law also addresses the situation. Tex. Family Code Ann. 搂 160.001, et seq. creates the Uniform Parentage Act and describes various aspects of determination of maternity and paternity as well as parentage. The law requires a man and woman to sign consent to assisted conception. If the father does not sign, however, it does not necessarily mean that he is not the legal father.
In present case, the husband has rescinded his permission to use the embryo for fertilization which is the foundation of the case. Roman is the controlling case law in texas and therefore, unless the wife can provide case law which supercedes the man's right to rescind under contract law, she will lose the property claim.
FORGOT TO ADD:
The above case (Roman) was later won by the ex-husband on appeal. The embryos were destroyed on order of the court.
Nobody can predict what decision you would get from a court because the saying that the law is an *** is not too far from the truth. Logically you would expect that the man could apply to have his sperm returned and that would be the end of it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment