The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
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
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
Page:
Haven't read any of the replies, but seriously, I saw this on the news, and I think the guy was perfectly reasonable.
The fertilised eggs were produced so that they could have a child as a couple. They are no longer a couple, and if the guy doesn't want a child that is his biological son brought into the world at this time, that's completely up to him. Biologically, the embryos are 50% his, and 50% hers. Unless both agree that they want one implanted so it can grow into a child, it should not be.
There are plenty of women who are infertile, doesn't give them the right to force another person to become a biological father when they don't want to.
The question I've always wondered is why so many couples (or individuals) have this massive thing about having 'their own' child... If you discover you are infertile, why spend thousands on fertility treatments when surely it'd be much cheaper/easier to adopt? I realise it's not entirely the same as having 'your own' child, but if you want children that much, then surely adoption is a good option?
The fertilised eggs were produced so that they could have a child as a couple. They are no longer a couple, and if the guy doesn't want a child that is his biological son brought into the world at this time, that's completely up to him. Biologically, the embryos are 50% his, and 50% hers. Unless both agree that they want one implanted so it can grow into a child, it should not be.
There are plenty of women who are infertile, doesn't give them the right to force another person to become a biological father when they don't want to.
The question I've always wondered is why so many couples (or individuals) have this massive thing about having 'their own' child... If you discover you are infertile, why spend thousands on fertility treatments when surely it'd be much cheaper/easier to adopt? I realise it's not entirely the same as having 'your own' child, but if you want children that much, then surely adoption is a good option?
Great topic you picked up on Nin. Been interesting reading peoples views (especially yours! =cP )
What the hell are going on about Nin?
Would you force a woman if the roles were reversed?
Would you force a woman if the roles were reversed?
Nin wrote:
> She's had cancer and is infertile. Another man or IVF aren't an
> option. That leaves her with adoption which is a really poor
> substitute.
Heh, just call me P.S. then ... I'm kidding of course ... ;)
A controversial debate no doubt, but not so much when you cut away all the emotional content, which I think, for the law to function correctly, you must do.
The way it works is that both partners must agree to the procedure. Obviously these are special circumstances, but that doesn't give us the power to ignore his wishes or trample on his rights, just because we believe we have the moral high ground.
Like it or not, the man has rights, just as she does, and both must be respected. Unfortunately for her, both people must agree and it is therefore not to be.
If we were to make changes to the law because we felt sorry for people in isolated cases such as this, then the laws will become a farce, I think they're already headed that way though to be honest.
Let's not lose sight of things - he didn't take away her chance of having children - cancer did that. He simply didn't want to have children with her. You may argue that he could just walk away and forget his child - I don't think I could do that, put in the same position, and I think there's a lot of men out there who would feel the same way.
He may be an ass in some peoples eyes, but wishing he got cancer .. ?
> She's had cancer and is infertile. Another man or IVF aren't an
> option. That leaves her with adoption which is a really poor
> substitute.
Heh, just call me P.S. then ... I'm kidding of course ... ;)
A controversial debate no doubt, but not so much when you cut away all the emotional content, which I think, for the law to function correctly, you must do.
The way it works is that both partners must agree to the procedure. Obviously these are special circumstances, but that doesn't give us the power to ignore his wishes or trample on his rights, just because we believe we have the moral high ground.
Like it or not, the man has rights, just as she does, and both must be respected. Unfortunately for her, both people must agree and it is therefore not to be.
If we were to make changes to the law because we felt sorry for people in isolated cases such as this, then the laws will become a farce, I think they're already headed that way though to be honest.
Let's not lose sight of things - he didn't take away her chance of having children - cancer did that. He simply didn't want to have children with her. You may argue that he could just walk away and forget his child - I don't think I could do that, put in the same position, and I think there's a lot of men out there who would feel the same way.
He may be an ass in some peoples eyes, but wishing he got cancer .. ?
Personally, I think this legal ruling is an abomination.
If the eggs hadn't been fertilised already they should have sent police round to his house to jack him off.
How dare he not want kids? Does he think he has rights or something?
If the eggs hadn't been fertilised already they should have sent police round to his house to jack him off.
How dare he not want kids? Does he think he has rights or something?
Also, was there a prearranged agreement between the two? I.e if he said no it couldn't go ahead?
Rastab wrote:
> Also, without meaning to be crass, rude or nasty here, I feel
> it's pertinent that the two people who are appalled by this
> man's actions are someone who's had to battle cancer & a
> mother of 3. It may give you more insight, but it may also skew
> your perspective somewhat.
3 kids or not. Id still say the same thing if i had none.
> Also, without meaning to be crass, rude or nasty here, I feel
> it's pertinent that the two people who are appalled by this
> man's actions are someone who's had to battle cancer & a
> mother of 3. It may give you more insight, but it may also skew
> your perspective somewhat.
3 kids or not. Id still say the same thing if i had none.
Rastab wrote:
> Anyway, yes. FM & pb & Alfonse are my favourites.
> Anyway, yes. FM & pb & Alfonse are my favourites.
I agree with FM.
I like it that there are people who can express views I share in a structured way.
I like it that there are people who can express views I share in a structured way.
FM! I thought you were dead.
Anyway, yes. FM & pb are my favourites.
Also, without meaning to be crass, rude or nasty here, I feel it's pertinent that the two people who are appalled by this man's actions are someone who's had to battle cancer & a mother of 3. It may give you more insight, but it may also skew your perspective somewhat.
Anyway, yes. FM & pb are my favourites.
Also, without meaning to be crass, rude or nasty here, I feel it's pertinent that the two people who are appalled by this man's actions are someone who's had to battle cancer & a mother of 3. It may give you more insight, but it may also skew your perspective somewhat.
Page: