Natallie Evan's Baby

[Will]

I don't know if anyone's been following this, but I'd be interested to see what people's views are.

While what has happened to this poor women is absolutely terrible, I think the courts have made the right decision to refuse her the right to use the fertilized embryos. It would be grossly unfair on the father, who wants to play a role of any children he has, and it is also his right to not have children.

It's terrible for Natallie, but it would not be at all fair on the father.

[cathidaw]

I too agree with the court's decision
It is a tragic situation for her- but we have to remember that men have rights too.
If a woman makes a decision to abort a baby, the man has no choice and
it's certainly not taken to the Courts of Europe-she goes ahead.
They split up, which must have been a traumatic decision for both so if he does not want to be a father to her child he must have a choice.
He may fall in love with someone else and only want a child with her--or none if he chooses .

[Madhatter]

If thats her only chance of having children she should be allowed but he should have no responsibilty over it.
Some would say if they've been fertilised he's already played his part and has no say in if they should be used. I personally think the decision is sick and I think he's sick.

[cathidaw]

Sorry Madhatter but I do not agree with you.
Maybe this man can cut off feelings of responsibility for his own child in this situation.
But I dont believe most men can do this. The very fact of knowing that you have a child somewhere will always be in the back of your mind.
I also have doubts about egg donations.
Some years ago a friend of mine was asked to donate eggs for a couple who could not have children.
She refused, as she could not live with the thought of one of her children not being 'hers' especially as they would be moving away.
As it happened they did move away and eventually had three children of their own. Quite a predicament it would have been.
This is only one instance and I know how happy most people are given the chance to have a child of their 'own.
I am still out with the jury on this subject and not sure whether I believe the doner should be anonymous or not.
Then there is the problem of the child , in later life, looking for it's roots which contrarily I believe they should be able to do.
I'm digging myself into a hole here so Iwill say goodnight and see what others on this site have to say.

[chillitt]

I think the problem with all fertility treatment is that it becomes someones 'fault' if they cannot help. Before IVF if a couple could not have children, they just dealt with it. Yes, its a shame, but they could accept the reality of it and deal with it. I am not sure the pain (both physical and mental) that a couple goes through while while having fertility treatment can be justified.
Everyone seems to want to blame this poor chap because she can not now have children. It was the cancer that stopped her having children, not him.

[Will]

If thats her only chance of having children she should be allowed but he should have no responsibilty over it.
Some would say if they've been fertilised he's already played his part and has no say in if they should be used. I personally think the decision is sick and I think he's sick.

Trouble is, this man wants responsibility over any children he has. Because he was no longer with Natalie, he wouldn't have been able to play the role of father in the way he'd liked.

Imagine being forced to be a father against your will, and then told you have to pay an allowence for it, but you hardly ever get to see it. This is the situation this man would have been put in, and it would have been grossly unfair on him.

[Madhatter]

It's not grossly un fair, what he's dome is grossly unfair, he agreed to father a child, and now he's going back on it when she's got no other chance of having a child. If the child had already been born he still wouldn't have had any control. He agreed to, the ebryos are fertilized, and he shouldn't be allowed to back out of it.
If she had some other way of getting pregnant then yes, but she hasn't and he knew that when he accepted. HE ACCEPTED IT AND WANTED IT.
What he's done in my eyes is the same as whats happened to a friend of mine, planned a pregnancy and as soon as she got pregnant did a runner.

You agree to something like that you don't back out. The same principles are used all over the world on many many things, even ebay, you make an agreement, it's legally binding, just because you haven't paid and had it delivered doesn't mean you can back out.

So no in my eyes he's not a poor chap, he's a horrible nasty selfish git who desserves to never have children of his own. It is him stopping her having children, if he says yes, she can have one, because he's said no she can't. What the cancer did was take HER choice away and give it to him.

[Shizara]

Before IVF if a couple could not have children, they just dealt with it. Yes, its a shame, but they could accept the reality of it and deal with it.

This is possibly the crux of the matter. Not everyone is able to have children. I feel for those that are desperate to be parents and for any of a number of reasons this has not happened for them. You see the joy that IVF and other forms of modern treatment that have helped such ones have children. My aunt and her husband were unable to have children, yet, their lives were not unfulfilled because of this. They were much loved as an aunt and uncle and at different times assumed the role of parents and grandparents as the need within the family arose.

This woman's situation is tragic and whilst at the time of the fertilization of the eggs the intention was to have a family together later they are no longer together. I see many arguable facets to this. That fertilization for later implantation must have been agreed to at the time by all concerned and further down the track the embryos have been denied a right to life because one does not wish it to happen. If a baby had been born during the relationship then you can't stop that process in its tracks as is the case with an embryo and both parents carry a responsibility for the upbringing of that child. People can run around laying blame to one party or the other 'until the cows come home' but I would have thought there was also a responsibility involved in the initial decision to have fertilized eggs put into storage for a later time anyway.

In making a decision I guess the courts have to weigh the facts up in the cold light of day rather than from the emotional perspective and what might be in the interests of all parties involved.

By ruling in favour of the desire of the man they are having a profound effect on the emotional well-being of the woman. Had they ruled in favour of the woman then the man would be in a position whereby he is financially and morally liable towards their child. A situation similar to the end result of a couple that already have children together and the family unit has broken down.

It is easy to look from the outside and cast judgement on a situation but in th same situation I wonder how we personally would feel.