Natalie Evans

jambutty

jambutty

Apprentice Geriatric
Tackler
Many people often consider the Law to be an ass but on this occasion the Law has got it dead right.

I sympathise with Natalie Evans but no man or woman has the right to force anyone into parenthood against his or her wishes and that is what Natalie Evans is trying to do.
 
i supose she could offer her services to any dirty old man and get pregnant,but she wanted her ex fiance's child.. still with todays law,, there could be paternity suits and all kinds of comebacks,,,i supose thats why she diddent win her case..
 
The trouble that can arise from this is endless and would put the childs parents especially thr father in a quagmire he was trying to avoid. If she had been given the go ahead then the poor father would be responsible for a child he did not want but had forced upon him with all the financial pains that go with it. I am not againts women having children but to me though I may get slated for this I think she is looking for revenge on her ex partner.

The child (if born) has to be considered. A child needs 2 loving parents not 2 that are going to be at it like 2 bull elephents so as to have a normal life. What of the consiquences of knowing the reasons that you were born and the legal battles that lead to it. Kids as they are would have a field day tormenting the poor sole and who is to say the child would be able to shrug it of without damage to his/her later life?

No it cannot be allowed to happen because of too many unknown variables. If she is desperate for a kid she would have stopped fighting this and adopted/fostered. Then considering the lengths she has been in this fight there is a good chance she would be considered unfit.

Me I feel sorry for her ex being dragged around because she wants something as is going to throw a strop if she dosnt get her own way.
 
grannyclaret said:
i supose she could offer her services to any dirty old man and get pregnant,but she wanted her ex fiance's child.. still with todays law,, there could be paternity suits and all kinds of comebacks,,,i supose thats why she diddent win her case..
Click to expand...

She has had cancer and the treatment left her unable to have a child naturally. At the time, her then fiance agreed to store some embryo's so she could have children later, after the treatment. He then withdrew his consent when they split.

I believe having given consent to the embryo's in the first place, he should not be able to withdraw that consent.

Those embryo's are her only hope of having a child of her own.
 
good decision by the courts

why should a man be made to father a child just because his ex wife had cancer and can no longer have children naturaly

she should adopt or buy a cat

why should a man have to pay for the upbringing of a child that he dosnt want especialy with a woman who he has divorced and hasnt even had the pleasure of sex with to conceive the child

there are thousands of men out there who have been forced into parenthood because a woman has decided that it would be fun to have a baby but without the father been around / sperm donar

yes it takes 2 to make a baby but if she had won her case how many more unwanted children would be allowed to exist at the expense of some poor guy , besides that if the man later remarries and has children then years down the line an ex partner decides to use his sperm banked years before where does that leave the mans new family

sorry but they obviously couldnt stay in a relationship so why have a child which is even harder to manage
 
A frightening change in the law is that men who gave sperm anonymously to sperm banks, now face having their details released to the resulting children.
 
That’s an interesting point Phylum, and it will take the Wisdom of Solomon to resolve it.

It is also interesting to note that in the main women say that she should be allowed to use the embryos and also in the main men say that she should not.

However when it comes to an abortion the man’s view is not taken into account or if it is it is generally over ridden. A woman cannot be forced into carrying on with a pregnancy if she wants to abort it but the other side of the coin is that a man cannot be forced into fathering a child if he doesn’t wish it.

It is tough on Natalie Evans but the courts have made the right decision.

With hindsight the couple should not have had embryos stored but separate eggs and sperm and this case should highlight the dangers of storing embryos that other couples must heed if they want to avoid possible future problems.

I wonder what the verdict would have been had Natalie’s fiancé died or been killed before the separation or after?
 
jambutty said:
I wonder what the verdict would have been had Natalie’s fiancé died or been killed before the separation or after?
Click to expand...

a case like that arose a few years ago and the woman was denied
 
[However when it comes to an abortion the man’s view is not taken into account or if it is it is generally over ridden. A woman cannot be forced into carrying on with a pregnancy if she wants to abort it but the other side of the coin is that a man cannot be forced into fathering a child if he doesn’t wish it.




[/quote]

Don't know how the law could physically carry out this, do you ? If the woman was determined to have an abortion would be back to the gin and a hot bath or back street abortinists and is probably one of the main reasons that the man's side is a none starter.

All very sad though, isn't it ? knowing that there are potential children waiting in a test tube for you which are part of your own genetic make-up.
Just can't be though, unless they got the mother to agree to move to the other side of the world, sever any connections or claims in the future for paternity payments or any contact with future step siblings, but not that way at the moment and, yes, agree was the correct decision.
 
This is a difficult one - I do have a lot of sympathy for Natalie Evans, it must be an awful position to be in. To be fair to her, she did say that she would bring up the child with her new partner, and would waive all her ex's paternal responsibilities. On the other hand, he has rights too. I agree it's an awful warning for anyone in the same position - have your eggs frozen, but without having them fertilised first, then you have a choice.
 
also what happens if a kidney is needed in the childs future life or some other heriditory problem
 
pendy said:
I agree it's an awful warning for anyone in the same position - have your eggs frozen, but without having them fertilised first, then you have a choice.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly Pendy, but she probably thought that, at the time, her relationship would go on forever. Don't know if there is any medical reason why they could not be frozen in the egg stage ? Perhaps they have a use-by date in this form ? Don't mean to be flippant by the way.
 
i mean as sorry as i feel for her i think he shud have every right to refuse

adn she's being totally inconsiderate to the feelings of the child who will grow up knowing that daddy didnt want him/her to b born.

and if he later on has kids with another woman it wud b difficult on them too
 
Was just wondering if the tables were turned, scenario:-

Suppose the bloke had been made infertile with testicular cancer, and had some embryos fertilised with his sperm, pre-op. No chance after of having a genes related child.
Finds either a surrogate mother or new girlfriend willing to carry this child for him.
Never seen a case like this yet ... what would be the judgement I wonder ?
Speculate that the initial donor (say ex-fiance) would only be too happy, as we women have different attitudes to this problem. ??

Is this true ?? :confused:
 
On the face of it, it might appear to be a simple turning of tables but it is not quite the same.

In the first place the guy would be a fool to have his sperm impregnate his fiancé’s egg and the embryo preserved and so would she for agreeing to it.

But if that is the scenario then I would suggest that the egg owner would have the say on whether the embryo is brought to term or not by herself. However if she wanted to donate the egg to another woman (his new partner) and he agreed then that would be that. Whether she does or not would depend on how the split happened and if she perceived that he was the cause of the split. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

By the way an infertile man has accepted his wife/partner becoming pregnant from a sperm bank.
 
?????????????????? Yeh, but this is all by agreement or fury Jambut. but what do you think the court judgement would be ? We all agree that it would be foolish to fertilise you current females eggs, etc., and you are saying that the egg owner would have the say, but Natalie did not, did she ?

Don't think you are following the twist here.
 
I think that the court judgement would be that if the egg owner did not want to carry the embryo to term herself the man could not force her to do so. Nor could he force her to donate her impregnated egg to another woman to bring it to term.

However if the egg owner declared that she would donate the impregnated egg to another woman AND the man agreed this would be allowed with various safeguards in place.
 
jambutty said:
. Nor could he force her to donate her impregnated egg to another woman to bring it to term.

.
Click to expand...

Would be interesting to find out though, eh ? if the law fell more favourably on the male side of things.

Garinda: I think the little lion came first so that it could stamp the egg.
 
katex said:
Would be interesting to find out though, eh ? if the law fell more favourably on the male side of things
Click to expand...

There should be no diference nor should the law be able to say yes to a man. Regardless of the rights or wrongs it is a human life we are talking about not who gets the cat or dog. As I said earlier a child needs 2 loving parents and not all the agro that goes with it. There are enough children brought into the world to be loved by only 1 parent and I am not infering that it is women only as men on occaision find themselves in the same prediciment. It is the human rights of the child to be that need to be considered not one or other of the parents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top