General Chat

I don't know where eveyone has this idea that we are born with the god given right to have children!!! Some people can't have children, it may well be unfortunate but it is a fact. You can't expect him to be held responsible for her getting ovarian cancer and not being able to have anymore children. He agreed at the time to fertilising her embryos because they were together and in love. They are no longer together and in love so why should he be forced to have children with her.

I do feel sympathy for her, and I couldn't have my own children, as I found out a few years ago now. So we adopted. As raw as it is for her at the moment, there is a future for this lady as a mother. Take it from me. Good luck to her. :-)

I don't see him as anything different than a sperm donor. A donor can't go and their mind later so why should he? Rose

I've thought about this all afternoon and have come to the decision that the right decision was made. I know the man gave his consent at the time but at that time the couple were probably were in a loving relationship that they thought would last forever. How many people, apart from the rich, get married thinking we must have a pre-nuptial agreement in case something goes wrong? Most people expect it to last forever and I doubt that this couple were any different. Maybe if they had thought ahead and come to an agreement just in case they had split up this wouldn't have happen but they didn't. What about the child growing up knowing that it's dad didn't/doesn't want it? Why should he pay support for a child he didn't want? He would be criticised by many, called a deadbeat dad, for not seeing the child or not paying towards its upkeep. If she had to go on benefits for any reason she would have to give his name or risk losing benefits. It a sad situation and I sympathise with her but as I've already said I think the right decision had been made.

Also, what would happen if the embryo wasn't successful in developing? That is a possibility. In that case she would not have ended up having a child anyway. Unfortunately a conception doesn't always mean a baby at the end of it.

I think he should have let her, it's alright for him he can have children anytime and those little babys were hers as well.

this is a debate not a falling out opportunity, so please i don't want to offend anyone, just my opinion. The couple may have been in love once, as are most couples, most couples then have children but they don't kill them off if the marriage goes wrong, so what is the difference? the embryo was done in a loving situation consented by both. Should we stop organ donations because God wouldn't like it? no, God is more caring than that. Janet

or a healthy baby.xxx

The children are alive but the embryos wouldn't survive outside the womb. As Kate has said there is no guarantee of a child anyway.

Yes Julie but the embryos had at least half a chance of surviving in her very willing womb as it stands now they have NO chance once they 'defrost' them or whatever it is they do with them.xx

Haven't changed my views since page one, lol, but let us hope now that any embryos created will have a cast -iron agreement attached to them, to save this heart-breaking situation ever arising again. These embryos were half hers - and I think this is what was at stake for her, not who the father was. She has no more eggs. I agree, none of us have a god-given right to have children, but this act was a deliberate one, taken with every hope that it WOULD lead to a live birth, and for no other reason than that. The poor woman must be devastated - so near, yet so far. OC

OC I do sympathise with her but there are lots of women out there unable to have 'their own' child because they don't have any eggs, that's why there is egg donation.

Had she not believed in her partner in the way that she did she would have frozen HER unfertilized eggs instead of THEIR fertilized ones then he would have had no say in it at all. Hindsight is a wonderful thing though. I will always believe that he consented to her having his child when he donated the sperm to fertilize her eggs. There will never be a grey area for me. She has my deepest sympathies. xx

she could use somebody elses eggs

Joyous..there is a poll on the news section of AOL regarding this case ''Should she have been allowed to keep her embryos'' Result so far is... Yes - 56% No - 38% Dont Know - 6% (Thousands have voted....guess which box I ticked???) ;o) K x

since reading everyones replies im all over the shop lol. although i think the man has his rights ,i dont agree in abortion.and thats what it feels like to me,even though the embryo is frozen.but i feel he has to be concidered.i feel so sorry for the lady,i really do.but many cannot have children.maybe she could adopt.i dunno.lol.xxxx

go on confuse me even more......tuts.piggin woman

Joy what you have to keep in mind is that if conception had happened in the 'normal' way there is a very good chance that there would now be a 5 year old child as a result. He felt commited enough in 2001 to give his consent to the fertilization. The fact that his feelings have changed towards the mother in my opinion does not give him the right to turn his back on the commitment he made back then to father her child knowing that this was the only chance she had of becoming a natural mother and knowing that there were other options available to her should he have doubts. He clearly didn't so he should stand by his original commitment as I say if conception had occured naturally he wouldn't have been given the choice xx.

**Well Said Muffles** (hate it when folks say that lol) But I have to say that I agree with all you have said 100% !! K x ps are you my *clone* or summut !!

Kim hon I am gutted for her. Same as you. xx