Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Faith in Humanity drops another notch.Follow

#77 Mar 07 2006 at 4:35 PM Rating: Good
***
3,118 posts
Nobby wrote:
Having heard him and her interviewed (they didn't interview the embryos yet - I can wait):

She sounds like a whiny *****. "I want babies! It's my right"
Mehh. Sh[Beige][/Beige]it happens. You lost yer ovaries and you lost your bloke. That makes you childless. Deal with it.

He sounds like a whiny ***** "Bla bla responsibility bla bla bla commitment"

In other breaking news. . . "You can't always get what you want"

You may be right Nobby, but if you try real hard you get what you need.
#78 Mar 07 2006 at 4:37 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Jacobsdeception the Sly wrote:
You may be right Nobby, but if you try real hard you get what you need.
I was a-poutin' with fish-lips and a-struttin' in Spandex when I typed it :-)

+1 Geriatric Brits who still think they're rock gods.

No, wait. . .
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#79 Mar 07 2006 at 4:42 PM Rating: Good
***
3,118 posts
Nobby wrote:
Jacobsdeception the Sly wrote:
You may be right Nobby, but if you try real hard you get what you need.
I was a-poutin' with fish-lips and a-struttin' in Spandex when I typed it :-)

+1 Geriatric Brits who still think they're rock gods.

No, wait. . .

Who knows, maybe you haven't lost it just yet. Bring along your axe when you hit stateside and we can watch as you test out your 1337 6-string skillz along with your cocksmanship. I hear that most Bostonians womenfolk have almost gotten over the whole "taxation without representation" thing and actually dig the silly accent.
#80 Mar 07 2006 at 4:43 PM Rating: Good
***
1,863 posts
Think of this case in reverse. Suppose it were the man who had his ********* shorn off during an amorous encounter with a kitchen appliance. He and his partner separate over this bizarre infidelity.

They have some fertalized zygotes in storage, saved for a rainy day. The woman no longer wants to be part of the relationship. The man decides to have his zygote implanted in a host female where it can be carried to term. The host mother will give birth to a lovely baby, one that he can presumably teach to love housewares.

The woman puts the kibosh on this on the grounds that it's her egg involved.



I can't imagine a court that would challenge it. Women are typically afforded their share of rights and more when it comes to reproductive issues (except in South Dakota and the occasional Wal-Mart pharmacy).

Why should it be different in this case? Male gamates are required for conception, too. The two parts of the whole are of equal value.

Edited, Tue Mar 7 16:44:00 2006 by Wingchild
#81 Mar 07 2006 at 4:44 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Jacobsdeception the Sly wrote:
Who knows, maybe you haven't lost it just yet. Bring along your axe when you hit stateside and we can watch as you test out your 1337 6-string skillz along with your cocksmanship. I hear that most Bostonians womenfolk have almost gotten over the whole "taxation without representation" thing and actually dig the silly accent.
They don't call me "Slowhand" for nuttin'. Smiley: sly
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#82 Mar 07 2006 at 4:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
They don't call me "Slowhand" for nuttin'.


Or for any other reason, I'm sure.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#83 Mar 07 2006 at 7:14 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Althrun the Silent wrote:
I'm sure it was brought up, I still think he's a twit for saying no to it though.

But you admit it's his right to do so? Because that's all that's being argued. As Nobby pointed out, they are likely both twits.
#84 Mar 07 2006 at 7:15 PM Rating: Good
Hey Nobbs, so you got invited to this but the Queen and the Princes were not? How'd you manage that?
#85 Mar 07 2006 at 7:16 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Elderon the Wise wrote:
Hey Nobbs, so you got invited to this but the Queen and the Princes were not? How'd you manage that?

Wrong thread, dude.
#86 Mar 07 2006 at 7:20 PM Rating: Good
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Elderon the Wise wrote:
Hey Nobbs, so you got invited to this but the Queen and the Princes were not? How'd you manage that?

Wrong thread, dude.
Awe crackers. I'm having such a bad night...Smiley: frown


Thanks Flea'lo
#87 Mar 07 2006 at 7:22 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Elderon the Wise wrote:
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Elderon the Wise wrote:
Hey Nobbs, so you got invited to this but the Queen and the Princes were not? How'd you manage that?

Wrong thread, dude.
Awe crackers. I'm having such a bad night...Smiley: frown


Thanks Flea'lo

Now help a girl out. Call my trainer and tell her I got the HIV or something. I'm too lazy to work out. Smiley: frown
#88 Mar 07 2006 at 7:22 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Althrun the Silent wrote:
How many times am I going to have to repeat that it is a viable option for him to chose and not have any of the concerns or responsibilities that he says he doesn't want, yet still appease her right to procreate. What part of that are you absolutely missing here? I can't be any more blunt.


The key words here are that it's something he "could choose". It's just that. His choice. And he chose not to.

There are several things that I think you're not considering with this "waive his parental rights" bit. First off, he may not want to. Some of us guys are silly that way. If we've got a kid out there that's got our genes, we want to be involved. But, we also might not want to be saddled with some nutjob woman in the process. In most cases, us poor guys don't get a choice (or not much of one past the sex bit). But here's a guy in a position to choose. He knows that if there is a child of his, he wants to raise it. However, maybe he *doesn't* want one now, or want one with this woman. That's 100% his right.

Secondly, I'm not an expert in family law in the UK (or EU for that matter), but it's entirely possible that what you're asking isn't possible under the law. While giving a child up for adoption is a legal possibility, I've *never* heard of that happening with just one of the biological parents. Either the child is separated from the biological parents and given up for adoption, or it's kept as the responsiblity of those biological parents. The idea that just one of the two biological parents can simply waive parental rights is a bit strange. Again. I'm no expert, but I'm not aware of that being legally possible.


If she keeps the child, then he remains the biological father, and he *can't* give up his rights nor his responsibilities. Certainly, I'd think a lot of dead-beat dads would have used this option if it was legally viable. I'm also quite sure that most nations don't allow such things for exactly that reason. Again. I'm just guessing here, but it seems like a reasonable guess.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#89 Mar 07 2006 at 7:25 PM Rating: Good
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Elderon the Wise wrote:
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Elderon the Wise wrote:
Hey Nobbs, so you got invited to this but the Queen and the Princes were not? How'd you manage that?

Wrong thread, dude.
Awe crackers. I'm having such a bad night...Smiley: frown


Thanks Flea'lo

Now help a girl out. Call my trainer and tell her I got the HIV or something. I'm too lazy to work out. Smiley: frown
I'd be glad to. PM me the number and I'll tell her you got stuck in Canada due to a detour on the way to the grocery store. By the way, is she hot? Smiley: dubious
#90 Mar 07 2006 at 8:48 PM Rating: Good
**
811 posts
Wouldn't it be possible to just get an egg donated along with just hitting up a sperm bank? I would think she could just get someone elses' genetic material planted inside her easily enough and just be done with the whole fuss and muss of court proceedings.

Screwed up breeders.
#91 Mar 08 2006 at 1:01 AM Rating: Decent
Vensuvio wrote:
Wouldn't it be possible to just get an egg donated along with just hitting up a sperm bank? I would think she could just get someone elses' genetic material planted inside her easily enough and just be done with the whole fuss and muss of court proceedings.

Screwed up breeders.



Nope, she was an idiot and had all of her remaining eggs fertilized with her then partner. And since she can't make new eggs, that's a moral dilemma for some.



try reading the article, and preceding posts that dealt with this, first before you post kkthnx












And I'd like people to actually quote me anywhere as saying he didn't have a right to be a total twit. I've just been making the opinion that he had a (imo) better option that would have satisfied all involved, if he would have let it. Also, I've be *trying* to bring to light her rights being infringed for his sake, which seems that not many people give a flip in here about.

My being male has no bearing on this either way, but if it were me, and I was stupid enough to fertilize a soon to be infertile woman's last eggs that I'm not even married to, I'd have an overwhelming sense of responsiblity to make sure she had kids if she desired them. Face it, whether I do or do not want children with this woman is irrelevant in this situation, because of something we both did to prevent her from having kids of her own any other way (and I mean her own genetic material, not from the family or adoption).

Maybe I'm just wired wrong, I dunno.
#92 Mar 08 2006 at 1:05 AM Rating: Good
**
811 posts
Althrun the Silent wrote:
Vensuvio wrote:
Wouldn't it be possible to just get an egg donated along with just hitting up a sperm bank? I would think she could just get someone elses' genetic material planted inside her easily enough and just be done with the whole fuss and muss of court proceedings.

Screwed up breeders.



Nope, she was an idiot and had all of her remaining eggs fertilized with her then partner. And since she can't make new eggs, that's a moral dilemma for some.



try reading the article, and preceding posts that dealt with this, first before you post kkthnx



Actually I said get an egg donated, as in someone elses' egg, as in not her own egg, but rather the egg coming from someone else who is not her.

The point being, I think getting so wrapped up in having exact genetic relations to a child that you would try and tie down someone to a child who wants nothing to do with it is strange and silly.

Edited, Wed Mar 8 01:11:47 2006 by Vensuvio
#93 Mar 08 2006 at 1:07 AM Rating: Decent
Vensuvio wrote:
Althrun the Silent wrote:
Vensuvio wrote:
Wouldn't it be possible to just get an egg donated along with just hitting up a sperm bank? I would think she could just get someone elses' genetic material planted inside her easily enough and just be done with the whole fuss and muss of court proceedings.

Screwed up breeders.



Nope, she was an idiot and had all of her remaining eggs fertilized with her then partner. And since she can't make new eggs, that's a moral dilemma for some.



try reading the article, and preceding posts that dealt with this, first before you post kkthnx



Actually I said get an egg donated, as in someone elses' egg, as in not her own egg, but rather the egg coming from someone else who is not her.



For the same reason she wouldn't just skip the pains of labor and just adopt a child- It wouldn't be her genetic material. How important that is is subjective.



Quote:
The point being, I think getting so wrapped up in having exact genetic relations to a child that you would try and tie down someone to a child who wants nothing to do with it is strange and silly.

/shrug Some 'breeders' take heart in the ability to be able to call their child their son/daughter in every possible way. There is nobody else who can lay claim to them, nobody you have to share your love with. Some people feel that way, some don't, I suppose. Conversely, I'm sure there are non-breeders who would wish for the same capacity.



Edited, Wed Mar 8 01:19:02 2006 by Althrun

*2nd edit*
To make that last comment a little less vague, there's the possibility for her that the original genetic parents would come after the child (years later, when they've come to regret the choice they made), in case she adopted or had someone else's baby. It would seem that the drama that he would be possibly avoiding is being foisted on her as well, possibly. :(
I can see why some people would choose to avoid that.

Edited, Wed Mar 8 08:21:44 2006 by Althrun
#94 Mar 08 2006 at 8:19 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Althun wrote:
And I'd like people to actually quote me anywhere as saying he didn't have a right to be a total twit.

That would be pointless, as your stance so far has been one of disagreement with his stance, and annoyance at his decision. You haven't argued his right to do so because you know it's impossible to do so.

Quote:
I've just been making the opinion that he had a (imo) better option that would have satisfied all involved, if he would have let it.

Maybe he didn't care to. Why is it his job to be her savior? They broke up, for crying out loud. Under normal circumstances, I'm not sure they would even be speaking anymore, much less discussing the possibility of engendering children.

Quote:
Also, I've be *trying* to bring to light her rights being infringed for his sake, which seems that not many people give a flip in here about.

Your turn to note that almost everyone that posted in this thread, including Samira and myself, both stated that it was a shame for her that she couldn't get what she so desperately wanted. Her right is not being violated. She had the option of choosing to do something about her ability to procreate, and she simply made a bum decision in choosing to freeze a zygote and not her eggs.

Quote:
My being male has no bearing on this either way, but if it were me, and I was stupid enough to fertilize a soon to be infertile woman's last eggs that I'm not even married to, I'd have an overwhelming sense of responsiblity to make sure she had kids if she desired them.

And that would be a choice that some would mock you for and call you a twit, and that would be okay, because it would all depend on how you feel about fathering a child.

Quote:
Face it, whether I do or do not want children with this woman is irrelevant in this situation, because of something we both did to prevent her from having kids of her own any other way (and I mean her own genetic material, not from the family or adoption).

At least now we know that you're the one that causes ovarian cancer. Smiley: rolleyes

Quote:
Maybe I'm just wired wrong, I dunno.

You're certainly wired different than Howard is.
#95 Mar 08 2006 at 8:26 AM Rating: Decent
Smiley: motz Thanks for missing the point.

She put the eggs up, he put the sperm up. It was his decision as well, not just hers, to fertilize the last eggs of an unmarried woman. Please don't tell me you think he shouldn't have any consequences past that.

*Edit* also,

Quote:
That would be pointless, as your stance so far has been one of disagreement with his stance, and annoyance at his decision. You haven't argued his right to do so because you know it's impossible to do so.


I was responding to you asking me to admit to something I hadn't been questioning in the first place, seen here:

Quote:
But you admit it's his right to do so? Because that's all that's being argued. As Nobby pointed out, they are likely both twits.



Edited, Wed Mar 8 08:33:15 2006 by Althrun
#96 Mar 08 2006 at 10:13 AM Rating: Decent
Althrun the Silent wrote:
She put the eggs up, he put the sperm up. It was his decision as well, not just hers, to fertilize the last eggs of an unmarried woman. Please don't tell me you think he shouldn't have any consequences past that.


First off, he HAS to give consent every step of the way in this. So regardless of weather she wants genetic children of her own, she can't. CAN'T. It's against UK law for her to even try. She made a bad choice. How many people in this thread have said that it was dumb to have all of her eggs frozen fertilized already? Gee, why did they say that? Because it was dumb. Her bad decision, now she has to live with it.

Regardless of your morals, feelings, or any other pretentious bullsh[red][/red]it, it's a closed case.

Welcome to the law.


EDIT: Because you can't spell NOW w/o "W"


Edited, Wed Mar 8 10:17:20 2006 by Kaelesh
#97 Mar 08 2006 at 10:24 AM Rating: Decent
Kaelesh the Puissant wrote:
Althrun the Silent wrote:
She put the eggs up, he put the sperm up. It was his decision as well, not just hers, to fertilize the last eggs of an unmarried woman. Please don't tell me you think he shouldn't have any consequences past that.


First off, he HAS to give consent every step of the way in this. So regardless of weather she wants genetic children of her own, she can't. CAN'T. It's against UK law for her to even try. She made a bad choice. How many people in this thread have said that it was dumb to have all of her eggs frozen fertilized already? Gee, why did they say that? Because it was dumb. Her bad decision, now she has to live with it.

Regardless of your morals, feelings, or any other pretentious bullsh[red][/red]it, it's a closed case.

Welcome to the law.


EDIT: Because you can't spell NOW w/o "W"




Edited, Wed Mar 8 10:17:20 2006 by Kaelesh


/slap

I'm not discussing or arguing the rights, or the laws therein, just (what I feel is) the inherent immorality of him being able to get away scot free in this. Did she make a bad choice? yes. I've not denied that, matter of fact if you read anything I've said, I've also pointed out that it was rather stupid of her. But you and others keep ignoring the fact that he also participated in that same bad choice, and for some stupid and inexplicable reason, you seem to feel that it's all A-ok.



Edited, Wed Mar 8 10:27:45 2006 by Althrun
#98 Mar 08 2006 at 10:39 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
just (what I feel is) the inherent immorality of him being able to get away scot free in this.


I wrote but you missed wrote:
Regardless of your morals, feelings, or any other pretentious ********* it's a closed case.

Welcome to the law.


Feel how ever you want to feel. It doesn't matter. Like I and most everyone else said, he didn't "get away with it" it's his right. She loses. End of story.
#99 Mar 08 2006 at 10:46 AM Rating: Good
Althrun, there is nothing inherently morally wrong with the man's decision. His decision is, at it's core, the correct one for him. That's what its all about, really. What is best for him. Like it or not altruism is not a moral value. Selflessness is not a moral value. Having children is not a moral value. I can't help but wonder why your public outcry, clinging to so fine a point as this, would be minimal if the situation were reversed. No, I don't wonder if it would be less, I know it would be. If the man in question were forced to have his line carried on, regardless of mechanisms put in place to keep him from responsibility, does that not violate, on an even more fundamental level, his rights? Of course it does.

You have done a wonderful job trolling with your claim to the moral high ground, but the argument you use really is rather obtuse.
#100 Mar 08 2006 at 11:15 AM Rating: Decent
/sigh.



1) I have not advocated that the courts turn this decision around and violate his rights in any post, nor would I support the courts for it if they did. I challenge you to find anything I've said that's worded towards that.

2) I have not advocated that the laws change because of instances like this.

3) Not once have I said anything that would imply that he should have his rights put aside on her behalf.


All I have said Moe is that he had a different choice, and have been promoting that it was a) a valid one, and b) a moral one. I have argued that he *should* have chosen differently because of what I feel is her right to pass on her own lineage. Not that he should be *forced* to chose differently. Key difference here. Is this case closed insofar as law dictates? Sure. But that doesn't mean you can't discuss the morals of a situation, which is all I'm f'n doing.

Laws are not moral absolutes. Else we (Americans) would all be in trouble for treason for still rebelling the English Crown.

Of course, Nobby knows we're still considered traitors, and I know he's plotting our arrests and eventual executions. I'm on to you.....
#101 Mar 08 2006 at 11:22 AM Rating: Good
***
3,118 posts
Althrun wrote:
I have argued that he *should* have chosen differently because of what I feel is her right to pass on her own lineage...Laws are not moral absolutes...


moe wrote:
Like it or not altruism is not a moral value. Selflessness is not a moral value. Having children is not a moral value.


/nod
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 329 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (329)