Posted on 04/10/2007 1:08:12 PM PDT by bedolido
A woman left infertile after cancer treatment says she feels "distraught" after losing a five-year legal battle to try to become a mother using her own embryos. Natallie Evans had mounted a "last chance" appeal to keep the six frozen embryos, which were fertilised by her ex-partner. But the European Court of Human Rights ruled that her rights to become a mother did not outweigh the rights of her ex-boyfriend, Howard Johnston, not to become the father of her children. Ms Evans, 35, from Melksham, Wiltshire, and Mr Johnston, 30, from Cheltenham, embarked on IVF in 2001 after she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.sky.com ...
Flame war in 3... 2... 1...
The father decided to become a father when he agreed to fertilize the eggs. He’s already a father. I don’t see how any court can find a right to not be a father after conception. If the embryo were implanted in the mother’s uterus, would he still have the right not to be a father? No.
Also, couldn’t the woman have saved unfertilized eggs from her ovaries?
Science has not yet perfected a way to freeze and thaw human eggs successfully. Only embryos.
So the EU doesn’t do jack shit about ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia except beg for the US to send forces...in their own damn back yard....but they give priority to this?
Even our courts have voided such waivers, so it wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on.
Yep. She actually wanted him to pay....
ADOPT..ADOPT.....I agree that the Father should have a say in this.
Actually, the court defined these embryos as not children with this ruling. Without the concept of the embryos being children, there is no fatherhood.
What a twisted world we live in.
even if she offered, I personally wouldn’t trust it. look at all the “sperm donors” who gave anonymously at clinics, and how they are being sued ( and losing ) for child support.
“It gets curiouser and......”
She should have frozen a couple embryos with donated sperm.
Well, what was the contract? Were the terms of the embryo clinic that both mother and father had to agree to release the embryos? If so, too bad for her.
Do I detect a cra-a-ack in the wall?
Is this the start of a new trend where biological fathers also get to have a say in the question of bringing an embryo to full term?
IVF should be banned to begin with.
If you can’t have a baby the normal way, forget about it.
And while I’m at it, artificial insemination is adultery uniless the donor is the woman’s husband.
And even then, it’s strange.
You’ve fallen for a common (and understandable) mistake - to assume that the European Court of Human Rights is something to do with the EU. In fact the Court has no connection whatever with the EU. It’s part of a much older organisation, the Council of Europe, which was founded in 1949 following a Churchill initiative, actively supported by the US. It has over 40 nations in its membership, much more than the EU. It has no political role.
http://nord-ost.org/kratkie-novosti/strasburgskiy-sud-prinyal-zhalobu-postradavshih-ot-terakta-na-dub.html
Strasbourg court accepts complaint from victims of the terror act at Dubrovka
From RIA Novosti, 13.04.07 (16:46) http://rian.ru/society/20070413/63605941.html
The European Court of Human Rights accepted for study a complaint from 58 victims of the act of terror in the theatrical center at Dubrovka, according to a report made to RIA ‘News’ by Igor Trunov, the plaintiffs’ lawyer.
“We sent in the complaint four years ago, and finally the court has decided to examine it,” stated the defender.
He explained that the complaint was made to the Strasbourg court not just by Russian citizens, but by citizens of Ukraine, Holland, and Kazakhstan as well.
Terrorists seized the theatrical center at Dubrovka where the musical ‘Nord-Ost’ was playing on October 23rd, 2002. 923 people were taken hostage. On October 26th, during the course of a special operation, all 40 terrorists were destroyed. 130 other people died during the act of terror, and more than 700 were injured.
“In reply to our complaint, the European court states that the defendant – the Russian government – must state its objections by June 27th, 2007,” added Trunov.
The complaint to the European Court of Human Rights was made on August 18th, 2003. In the complaint the advocates asked that each victim be paid 50 thousand Euros compensation for violations of their human rights.
In the opinion of the plaintiffs, the Russian courts, in examining their lawsuits, “violated the rights of the applicants to an impartial, independent and fair hearing, as well as effective legal protection.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.