Lynda/WA
08-14-2001, 06:37 PM
In New Jersey a couple started fertility treatment and had some eggs removed from the wife and fertilized with the husbands sperm. These fertilized eggs are now frozen and in storage. After several failed attempts the couple conceived naturally. When their daughter was 6 months old they divorced.
Now they are arguing over the fertilized eggs. The father is a devout Catholic and wanted the eggs to either be donated to an infertile couple or be saved. Not destroyed since he considers that against his religion.
The mother says she doesn't want to be a biological mother. Even if she has no legal obligation such as if they are donated. She wants them destroyed or given for medical research.
The courts decided the mother can do with them as she wishes. They said that her right to not reproduce overrode the father's right to reproduce. Note that she would have been a biological mother without any legal or financial responsibility.
A lawyer on the show said that if the father had since become infertile it may have gone in his favor. She also said that if it was the mother wanting the eggs and the father wanting them destroyed that the mother would most likely have been given them. The one thing that she found really interesting was the possible future implications. Since the courts said that the right to no become a parent overrode the desire to become one- how about when a woman becomes pregnant accidently. She wants the baby and he doesn't. Should this ruling still apply?
What do you think should have been done? What should be the standard? What if religious beliefs are a factor?
Now they are arguing over the fertilized eggs. The father is a devout Catholic and wanted the eggs to either be donated to an infertile couple or be saved. Not destroyed since he considers that against his religion.
The mother says she doesn't want to be a biological mother. Even if she has no legal obligation such as if they are donated. She wants them destroyed or given for medical research.
The courts decided the mother can do with them as she wishes. They said that her right to not reproduce overrode the father's right to reproduce. Note that she would have been a biological mother without any legal or financial responsibility.
A lawyer on the show said that if the father had since become infertile it may have gone in his favor. She also said that if it was the mother wanting the eggs and the father wanting them destroyed that the mother would most likely have been given them. The one thing that she found really interesting was the possible future implications. Since the courts said that the right to no become a parent overrode the desire to become one- how about when a woman becomes pregnant accidently. She wants the baby and he doesn't. Should this ruling still apply?
What do you think should have been done? What should be the standard? What if religious beliefs are a factor?