Posted on 02/19/2025 12:15:21 AM PST by Morgana
A white woman who gave birth to a black baby through IVF and lost custody of the boy is now suing the fertility clinic she went through to have the procedure.
Krystena Murray, 38, filed a lawsuit Tuesday against Coastal Fertility Specialists in Savannah, Georgia, a little over a year after she gave birth in December 2023.
Since she chose to have a white sperm donor, she was immediately caught off guard when her baby was dark-skinned.
After taking a DNA test and reaching out to the clinic, she learned that another couple's embryo was mistakenly placed in her uterus, Business Insider reported.
That didn't stop Murray, a single woman, from falling in love with and bonding with her newborn, even though he wasn't genetically hers.
But just five months after giving birth, Murray lost custody of the child to his legal parents - the couple who had provided the embryo to the clinic.
'I've never felt so violated,' Murray said during a press conference with Peiffer Wolf, the personal injury firm representing her.
She added that she felt 'emotionally and physically broken' after having to relinquish her rights to a child who she fully thought was hers until he was born.
Murray said she had wanted a child for a long time. She found a sperm donor who was a white man with blue eyes and dirty blonde hair, physical features she shares.
She said she felt conflicted the moment she delivered the baby boy, knowing he wasn't hers but at the same time bonding with him.
'The birth of my child was supposed to be the happiest moment of my life, and honestly it was,' she told reporters on Tuesday. 'It was also the scariest moment of my life.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
From what I understand, they toss it.
Ops. I misread your post. Yes she does need to find her child.
The clinic saw the freight train lawsuit coming, and have dummied up.
Seems to be what most medical types/docs do when they see their errors showing up, just start ghosting people.
remember that the next time you get sick, and dont take any medicine, we wouldn’t want you to play God.
Some babies grow in a peculiar way.
No worries. It is all confusing.
At least the child will have married parents. Why didn’t she get married first before trying to have a kid? IVF should not be available in such circumstances.
Dude, you are always overreacting with “don’t lecture me, I’m not stupid” followed by along elucidation showcasing your mastery of the subject matter.
It’s weird.
“Why are you lecturing me?”
Wound a little tight this morning?
I merely made a general statement about conception. We have all heard it — life begins at conception, but obviously not at fertilization since the fertilized egg can be frozen.
“Many of us do not agree with the definition quoted if the implication is that life begins at some point after fertilization...”
Not every fertilized egg, embryo, ever makes it to implantation. That is why adult women have about 600 eggs stored away for potential use.
I think most people are aware of the basic biology. The question comes down to when human life begins.
There is a “nut” joke in this story somewhere, for sure...
That is inaccurate. The terms fertilization and conception are used interchangeably in the scientific community. Fertilization and conception are recognized as the same thing. A human person is conceived at fertilization.
What is conception and when does it happen? (Medical News Today)
I’m not trying to create a life when I need medicine for an illness. Meanwhile, thousands of orphans can be adopted without a team of people getting involved in what’s supposed to be a natural and very private way for two, and only two, people to conceive a child.
I don’t know how people can totally ignore children who are dreaming of belonging to a family.
“A human person is conceived at fertilization.”
Then nature is an abortionist because scientists say half of fertilized eggs are passed out of the body without being implanted.
Nature overrides that by having the female born with an incredible number of eggs.
Don't take it so seriously! I did, after all, allow for the likelihood that you were only speaking "through me" to other, less-knowledgeable FReepers!
(And yes, I'll admit it: I am a little tightly wound this morning!)
We have all heard it â life begins at conception, but obviously not at fertilization since the fertilized egg can be frozen.
The Merriam-Webster definition I provided makes it clear that "fertilization" and "conception" can be used interchangeably - at least in all but the most-technical contexts (i.e., IVF technicians might have good reason to differentiate the two).
I, for my part, regard CONCEPTION - the fusion of sperm and ovum to form a zygote - as the starting-point of human life, of the existence of a new HUMAN BEING, regardless as to whether it can then be frozen or not.
The mere fact that an embryo has been frozen has no bearing upon its dignity as a human life. Whether it is still floating down (up?) the Fallopian Tube or has already implanted in the endometrium of the uterus has no bearing on its status as a human being (in an albeit very early stage of development).
Do you agree? (Your "we have all heard it" makes me wonder whether you are mocking that or saying it sincerely.)
Regards,
The definition of an abortion is the willful direct destruction of a human person by artificial means. Nature has neither a will or intent, but within nature there are provisions to unsure the strongest and most fit survive. Uninduced miscarriages are similar, except they they occur after the conceived child has been implanted.
I'm generally on your side - IVF (incl. surrogacy) is fraught with moral conundrums: A clinic could, conceivably, contract with a billionaire to use his sperm to fertilize a million ova, and freeze the resultant embryos in some sort of "Doomsday Vault" buried under the Rocky Mountains. Decades could then pass. The billionaire could die. All the ovum-donors could die. The cryogenic facility could go bankrupt. Once the monthly electricity bills are no longer being paid, the embryos could begin to thaw. This would open up a colossal "can of worms." What is the status of these embryos? Who "owns" them? What if no one wants them (wants to thaw and implant them and carry them to term)? What if LOTS of people want them? What if the taxpayers who have to foot the bill etc., etc.?
The most-prudent course of action would probably be to simply prohibit it outright, in toto, from the get-go.
Sorry if that sounds harsh - but even in the best of circumstances (father has "weak" sperm, but mother is fertile; IVF clinic effects the implantation of one or two embryos, but doesn't rightly know what to do with the inevitable supernumerary embryos), some morally borderline decisions are unavoidable (most obviously: the "disposal" of the supernumerary embryos).
That's the "best" scenario. But today, we are seeing gay couples (both men) contracting for surrogates, lesbians deliberately becoming single mothers (with govt. approval, no less!), etc.
My basic maxim is that we shouldn't always reach for extreme cases when establishing public policy. The existence of "outliers" and "isolated, extreme cases) should not be allowed to influence the laying-down of public policies. But in the case of IVF, it looks like these "cock-ups" happen with far too much frequency.
Regards,
Does it bother you that much? In any event, only about 0.14% of my posts begin with "Don't lecture me, I'm not stupid!"
Lighten up, Francis!
[...] followed by along elucidation showcasing your mastery of the subject matter.
That's because, before posting, I first go and refresh my understanding of the given subject by reading a few Wikipedia articles, etc.
Regards,
Bingo!
Regards,
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.