M
mchium
Guest
Well, it was only a matter of time (and mind-set) - but no less sad and tragic for all that. (and…don’t know where this is - but seem to remember it being fought out in the U.S.—)
Seems some couple, after conceiving in-vitro, decided to divorce. The woman / mother, impregnated with her child via in-vitro, wanted not only to retain her pre-born babe, but sought ‘custody’ of all the couple’s remaining ‘frozen’/fertilized ‘embryos’.
She did this to claim them (babies) as the fruit of the marriage and to keep the fertilized embryos from destruction. (besides, she thought she might ‘want/use’ them at some future point)
Her spouse seeks to obtain custody of the fertilized embryos, too, since he claims these embryos are ‘his’ as well as hers and claims that, in the past and in the event of just such an occurance, they agreed (and signed a document to this affact) that all unused embryos were to be destroyed.
Now, the mother, as could have been predicted, has changed her mind and reniged on the supposed agreemen.
The unkindest cut of all is this: The attorney retained by the mother, to fight for her (mother’s) rights in this matter (and, as we see, the ‘embryos’’ rights), is using, as her defense the defense we all knew was coming:
The fertilized and as yet unimplanted embryos are legally declared ‘joint assets’ of the marriage (like any other asset), they are to be handled as any other assets.
I know this is not surprising considering he way things are - but in this situation and its definition lie the seeds not only our destruction, but of the natural outcome of what we have so long practiced.
How sad…these ‘children’ are now, OFFICIALLY, assets, defined so by the court. I think we must pray! ALL THINGS are possible with God!!
Seems some couple, after conceiving in-vitro, decided to divorce. The woman / mother, impregnated with her child via in-vitro, wanted not only to retain her pre-born babe, but sought ‘custody’ of all the couple’s remaining ‘frozen’/fertilized ‘embryos’.
She did this to claim them (babies) as the fruit of the marriage and to keep the fertilized embryos from destruction. (besides, she thought she might ‘want/use’ them at some future point)
Her spouse seeks to obtain custody of the fertilized embryos, too, since he claims these embryos are ‘his’ as well as hers and claims that, in the past and in the event of just such an occurance, they agreed (and signed a document to this affact) that all unused embryos were to be destroyed.
Now, the mother, as could have been predicted, has changed her mind and reniged on the supposed agreemen.
The unkindest cut of all is this: The attorney retained by the mother, to fight for her (mother’s) rights in this matter (and, as we see, the ‘embryos’’ rights), is using, as her defense the defense we all knew was coming:
The fertilized and as yet unimplanted embryos are legally declared ‘joint assets’ of the marriage (like any other asset), they are to be handled as any other assets.
I know this is not surprising considering he way things are - but in this situation and its definition lie the seeds not only our destruction, but of the natural outcome of what we have so long practiced.
How sad…these ‘children’ are now, OFFICIALLY, assets, defined so by the court. I think we must pray! ALL THINGS are possible with God!!