Embryo custody a split decision

[deadparrot]

Source: Dallas Morning News

AUSTIN – She got the house and he got the Honda. The problem in Augusta and Randy Roman's divorce came over the really little things: frozen embryos that they once hoped would bring them children.

Augusta Roman wants to keep the embryos and try to have a baby. Randy Roman wants them destroyed, or at least kept frozen.

The case of Roman vs. Roman, now before the Texas Supreme Court, pits her right to have children using the embryos against his right not to have children.

"These are my children," said Ms. Roman, 45. "This is my last chance at being a biological mom."

Read more: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-embryo_09tex.ART.North.Edition1.4369dfa.html

[Erika]

1. So much for the two parent home n/t

[LiberalFighter]

2. Remove the sperm and give the embryos to her

[JohnLocke]

31. I'm pretty sure that's impossible (nt).

[LiberalFighter]

3. More excerpts

Mr. Roman argues that his ex-wife could use donor eggs or adopt if she wants children. And while Ms. Roman has agreed that she would raise the children without him, he has said he could not knowingly ignore his offspring.

A court order to discard the embryos would violate Ms. Roman's moral beliefs, she says. To her, it would be the same as the state forcing her to have an abortion.

"If I was pregnant with these embryos, no one should come and say to me, 'Abort them,' " Ms. Roman said. "There is no difference between embryos inside the womb and outside the womb. I'm already pregnant. It's just implanting.

She can't raise the children without him legally. By that, I mean the court would rule that he has to pay child support. The woman can't arbitrarily release him from that duty.

Forcing her to have an abortion? Come on! This woman is nuts to make that statement.

"I'm already pregnant"???? Again this woman is nuts. Until she has the embryo implanted and growing inside her she is NOT pregnant.

[aquart]

4. He fertilized those eggs.

The intent was to have a child when the eggs were fertilized. It was NOT done against his will.

So far as I'm concerned, it's the same as a pregnancy from a one-night stand. If you didn't want the baby, you shouldn't have supplied the sperm. And saying, "Well, I wanted it then but I don't want it now" IS aborting.

Once the sperm has met the egg, THE DECISIONS BELONG WITH THE MOTHER. A man has every opportunity to prevent the sperm fertilizing the egg, he took none of them.

I'm with her.

[Kali]

5. Oddly, so am I!

[nodehopper]

6. I disagree

"Once the sperm has met the egg, THE DECISIONS BELONG WITH THE MOTHER" is a meme that only applies in cases of biological pregnancy when the sperm and the egg are inside the mother's body. there was an identical case recently in europe and the father won. emptionally my sympathies lie with the woman, but legally the man is in the right.

[seatless-in-seattle]

7. how about: sperm meets egg=no abortion?

how about: sperm meets egg=no abortion? She chose to have sex.

if a woman should not be forced to have a child without her wanting it, why should a man, especially in this case when the "baby" is in a freezer? They both agreed to destroy them in case of a divorce too. If those kids are born, he has to support them; not even mom can forgo the child support given that technically it belongs to the child.

[aquart]

15. Because, and this is a biggie...

Once the sperm meets the egg, IT IS THE WOMAN'S BUSINESS. Sorry if you want equality, there is none nor should there be. Maybe if the ERA passes.

Should a malicious man be allowed to trick a hopeful woman out of her eggs and then kill the embryos? Because he has gone cold, he's going to take back his sperm? Break her heart twice? Selfish, controlling prick that he is?

He fertilized the eggs. His job is done. He can die.

[SayWhatYo]

22. Oh come on, in this case the sperm and egg are on equal footing since it's not in anyones body....

Just switch those two things around and I doubt you would agree with it, would you?

[seatless-in-seattle]

26. why?

why is it HER business and not his? One provided the eggs the other the sperm and both are in the freezer. Why is one more important? I sense an attitude. Can a man ever be right?

>> Break her heart twice?
Oh no, he should allow her to have triplets just so she feels fulfilled. If she puts a few million dollars in a trust fund for support, he will probably relent.

[rocktivity]

19. Once the sperm has met the egg IN THE MOTHER'S WOMB

the decisions belong with the mother, and for a very sensible reason--IT'S THE MOTHER'S WOMB. That isn't the case here.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Ilsa]

28. That is the way I see it. It isn't in her womb, so she has no more claim

about biological violation.

He doesn't want these children. Interestingly, when proposed that he walk away from it, he said he couldn't. I suspect that is the same rationale for a mother not being able to adopt out her baby -- knowing they are out there, presents too much responsibility on the parent.

I tend to be with the ex-husband on this one. A child hasn't been created yet. He doesn't want it to go further. But I do feel sorry for her, having had fertility issues and biological clock issues myself.

[SayWhatYo]

21. hah! What if he insisted she carry the baby?

"If you didn't want the baby then you shouldn't have provided the egg"

It's not in her body so the decision rests on both them, not just the woman. Unless you can explain how this would affect her more than it would affect him... In the case of a real abortion it's clear, the woman is the one having an operation done on her body.... Where as in this case there is no such thing.

[Karenina]

8. She and he are both a taco short

of a deep frozen combination plate. SOMEBODY PULL THE PLUG!!!

[Maddy McCall]

11. LOL

:thumbsup:

[PassingFair]

9. I'd like them scrambled, with a side of bacon.

The woman should adopt or become impregnated by another man.

Things have changed.

I'm 100% with the guy on this one.

On Edit:

Just read the full article, and the guy sounds like a total JERK.

BUT, I still side with him.

This woman should have her head examined for wanting to
replicate his DNA anyway.

[LisaL]

12. I think the problem is she is 45.

I do sympathize with her, but I think legally he should not be forced to become a father against his will, considering they signed an agreement that in case of the divorce embryos would be destroyed.

[PassingFair]

13. We are sympatico....

:)

[aquart]

16. Does contract law

permit contracts that work against the best interests of the parties involved? Is someone legally allowed to sign such a contract and have it be held binding?

Because I could argue that contract indicated his fraudulent intent.

[LisaL]

17. I don't know much about contract law, but using your argument,

signing a pre-nuptial agreement would be illegal since it might not be in the interest of one of the parties involved.
So, I don't think there is much validity in your argument.

[seatless-in-seattle]

27. or using her other logic...

a woman has to have a man's child even if she divorces him...after all she agreed to it when they got married.

[Maddy McCall]

10. Cripes. I think I'm going to fall on the father's side.

I don't know...I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around this one.

What a quagmire, though!

:scared:

[Ilsa]

30. You mean the man's side --- he isn't a father, yet. (And ITA.)

[bicentennial_baby]

14. Ha! A Fundie wants his embryos detroyed! The irony!

:rofl:

[rocktivity]

18. The embryos should be discarded--particularly since they AGREED to do so

if the marriage failed. Making such an agreement was a brilliant thing to do, and this situation is the reason why.

If one of the embryos had already been implanted, I'd say to the husband, "Tough toenails." But if there's no possible way for the father to be released from his legal obligations to the child, then both parties should cut their losses and move on. Besides, if the wife cares THAT much about becoming a mother, she ought to be THRILLED by the prospect of finding a more suitable sperm donor!

:headbang:
rocknation

[SayWhatYo]

20. I agree with you...

Not sure how the entire process works, but I am assuming that by implanted, you mean it was in her body growing, right? Right now it's not in her body and wont affect her personal self if they are destroyed.

Also, the guy sounds like an asshole anyways.

[rocktivity]

24. yes, I meant implanted in HER.

If one had been implanted in SOMEONE ELSE, they'd BOTH be stuck!

:rofl:
rocknation

[SayWhatYo]

25. :D

Yeah, well maybe it was implanted in him :P

[LisaL]

32. Obviously if they were implanted, no one could argue

he would have anything to say about it. There is no law that allows a man to make a decision if the woman is pregnant and he does not want the child.
But I don't think legally she is going to win since the embryos have not been implanted.

[Scooter24]

23. I'm with the father here...

they both signed a contract that specifically states that the embryos are to be destroyed if the couple was to divorce.

I highly doubt you are going to see this case undermine Roe v. Wade as stated in the article.

[Ilsa]

29. You mean the ex-husband. He isn't a father (yet). But I know what you

mean; I almost wrote the same thing.