![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A Day Well Spent
7 Mar 2006 16:54It's been a good day. All I now need to do to get "To The Power of X" completed is to write the epilogue...
In The News... The big story today involves a British woman ovarian cancer victim who has been going to every court in the land and Europe, fighting for the right to be impregnated with the embryos fertilised before her treatment in IVF procedures consented to by her and her then-boyfriend. The couple broke up, and he decided to withdraw his consent - and all the news reports present this as an attack on her rights, and go on about her embryos...
This is a truly unique situation, unfortunately, with no logical solution. If a couple break up and are in dispute about the family home, you can always sell the house, and split the proceeds - but you can't liquidate a fertilised embryo, and return the genetic constituents to their respective originators, so all the talk of the man "denying the woman her right to have a baby" is a bit cynical. He has the right to decide what happens to his genetic material, without which the embryos would not exist - making the embryos as much his property as her - and what's to stop the woman chasing after him for child support out of sheer spite if the "High Chamber" or whatever gives her the go-ahead, and she gets pregnant. I don't honestly believe the boyfriend's decision has been made out of malice - up until the moment of implantation, both parties have the right to withdraw their consent. It's enshrined in law.
And there's no point in bringing up the "sperm donor" argument, as that's completely different. from what I've heard, an anonymous sperm donor effectively signs away their rights to that particular genetic sample - and the man in this case certainly hasn't done that...
If the courts rule in the woman's favour, they are saying consent on the man's part counts for nothing, as his decision can be overridden at the stroke of a pen, or the bang of a gavel. This is particularly poignant as, on this very same day, new advice to men comes out about ensuring consent from a sexual partner to avoid a rape conviction - given the way that the fundamental concept of consent could be eroded by the embryo case, how long would it take for someone to question the value of a woman's consent, or lack thereof...?
I'm no legal or medical expert, but that doesn't change the facts that the man has rights too.
And Finally... I was going to rant about global warming, but I've been too busy with writing to put any real thought into it. Maybe later, maybe tomorrow...
In The News... The big story today involves a British woman ovarian cancer victim who has been going to every court in the land and Europe, fighting for the right to be impregnated with the embryos fertilised before her treatment in IVF procedures consented to by her and her then-boyfriend. The couple broke up, and he decided to withdraw his consent - and all the news reports present this as an attack on her rights, and go on about her embryos...
This is a truly unique situation, unfortunately, with no logical solution. If a couple break up and are in dispute about the family home, you can always sell the house, and split the proceeds - but you can't liquidate a fertilised embryo, and return the genetic constituents to their respective originators, so all the talk of the man "denying the woman her right to have a baby" is a bit cynical. He has the right to decide what happens to his genetic material, without which the embryos would not exist - making the embryos as much his property as her - and what's to stop the woman chasing after him for child support out of sheer spite if the "High Chamber" or whatever gives her the go-ahead, and she gets pregnant. I don't honestly believe the boyfriend's decision has been made out of malice - up until the moment of implantation, both parties have the right to withdraw their consent. It's enshrined in law.
And there's no point in bringing up the "sperm donor" argument, as that's completely different. from what I've heard, an anonymous sperm donor effectively signs away their rights to that particular genetic sample - and the man in this case certainly hasn't done that...
If the courts rule in the woman's favour, they are saying consent on the man's part counts for nothing, as his decision can be overridden at the stroke of a pen, or the bang of a gavel. This is particularly poignant as, on this very same day, new advice to men comes out about ensuring consent from a sexual partner to avoid a rape conviction - given the way that the fundamental concept of consent could be eroded by the embryo case, how long would it take for someone to question the value of a woman's consent, or lack thereof...?
I'm no legal or medical expert, but that doesn't change the facts that the man has rights too.
And Finally... I was going to rant about global warming, but I've been too busy with writing to put any real thought into it. Maybe later, maybe tomorrow...
