Viewing Thread:
"Is it just me..."

or is the guy behind this a complete c**t!*
How bloody cruel can this guy be? He's basically ended her dreams and for what? She wasn't asking anything from him that he hadn't already given.
I swear to god if i met him in the street i'd kick him in the balls and end his chances of having kids.


*I'm sorry for the language but i feel it's apt

err not really. :S

Machie wrote:
> If she's desperate for a child there's always adoption.

Oh yeah easy answer for everything...

I'm gonna have to agree with the doctor. It was the right decision but I still feel really bad for her.

I also feel bad for the guy, we dont know why they broke up. He doesnt have to be a father if he doesnt want to be. And he's had to go to court several times to stand by his right.

My advice would be for her to get on with life. She's survived cancer so she should enjoy it. Getting all stressed like this is only making things worse and once you've had cancer, you're more likely to get it again. If she's desperate for a child there's always adoption.

From a moral standpoint as a landmark case, then the courts were right in denying the woman the embryos, harsh as it may seem. However little responsibility the man has to take once the child is born, it is still his child too, made up of his DNA.

From the standpoint of how he reacted and the reasons behind it, yes he is a tw*t, seemed like he was doing it for all the wrong reasons.

The two are seperate issues. Think about this as well; If we turned it around and the man wanted to use the embryo to impregnate his new wife/girlfriend because he couldn't have children any longer (I'm not thinking about whether this is actually possible, just for arguement's sake) would that be the same?

I dont see what the problem with it is. I do not think that this should have been taken away from her. If he didnt want to have anything to do with the child then he didnt have to. For starters he could have gone to a Solicitor anyway to sign his rights away. It can happen. I can see this bloke that she was with who didnt want this going ahead was just such a c*** that he just wanted to get one over on her. The best way he knew how was to take her chances of happiness away.

Yeah there are other options she can consider but i guess maybe she just wanted a chance to do it her way.

MEN ARGHHHH!!!!!

(Well not all men i know)

So you'd be for enforced abortions on women legally allowed to have them if the dad changed his mind? Y'know seeing as the embryo is of joint ownership and all.
As far as i'm aware i only made one assumption and that is that he's vindictive. Everything else was just a response to what others have said and my opinion.
Whatever legal standpoint you take, what he has done is morally disgusting. He could have ignored it, accepted the offer he was given, done the decent thing, instead he's chosen to destroy a massive part of her life and what reason did he give? "Common sense" ...
Words fail me

Nin wrote:
> Foundations wrote:
> he doesnt want a kid on his hands
>
> As is the norm in this kind of case, he was offered that he
> would have no responsibility, financially or otherwise if he
> wanted. Your arguement about not having a kid on his hands is
> void.

Unfortunately, nobody can totally absolve him of responsibility for a child he helped create. Once the child is born, the law is back on the side of the mother in financial terms. She could try to claim child support and prior agreements wont mean an awful lot when it comes to the child's welfare. What happens in X years when the child wants to know his father. The father has to refuse contact with the child then or take some responsibility. I know some men can walk away from children and not give a damn. Should we assume this man is such a person? Perhaps he believes that if he fathers a child that he has to take responsiblity whether he wants to or not. Its not an unusual attitude for men.
In my opinion, theres always going to be some measure of responsibility whether he wants it or not. And simply, you're making an awful lot of assumptions about the man and his motivations so you can paint him as the bad guy.

Foundations wrote:
> he doesnt want a kid on his hands

As is the norm in this kind of case, he was offered that he would have no responsibility, financially or otherwise if he wanted. Your arguement about not having a kid on his hands is void.
It is exactly as she argued. He agreed to their creation with the intent for her to use and that should be legally binding.
Her rights should be every bit as valid is his and i dont see why he should get his way in this.
I stick by what i said, he's a c***! He knew full well that the eggs that he agreed to be fertilised were her last chance and he's had them destroyed anyway like the vindictive cockfase that he is.
As far as i'm concerned this is akin to agreeing to a kidney transplant with a family member and then changing your mind and leaving them to die when you have an argument. It's not the decent thing to do. Utter c**t! I hope he gets cancer, it'd serve him right.

he doesnt want a kid on his hands, its a fair enough thing, and there are still other routes for her to go down, may not biolgically be hers but she can still have a child.

so yes it is just you.

Nope.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me that the man should deny her his part of the process now they are no longer a couple.

A last desperate act of a broody woman. *Shrugs*

Although it does raise emotional questions and where ones DNA property becomes an actual person in it's own right I suppose.

Cold law triumphs over the emotional issue here, where indeed it should.