An open and shut case?
Natalie Evans' - who is now infertile - only chance of children is to use her pre- fertilised embryos, which the courts have demanded she destroys. She will find out today from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) if she has been successful in overturning this decision.
Simple enough it is not. Mr Johnson who originally fertilised the embryos has since withdrawn his consent for their use.
Ms Evans has gone to ECHR because it stipulates it's a human right to have a family.
Penguin Island expects her to be unsuccessful, without Mr Johnson’s consent would it be a family? Devastating for her and you wonder why Mr Johnson doesn’t have a bit more compassion; but the right decision it will be.
In today’s world where men aren’t taking enough responsibility when spreading their oats, it is important that this ruling shows that the choice for having a baby is one of both man and woman.
We must get away from run-away dads and men who don’t think past their dicks, if the court rules in Ms Evans' favour it will be a step backwards.
8 comments:
hey i agree with all you've said but just because the dad isn't around doesn't mean it's not a family
what is the legal definition of family?
I'm not sure what the legal definition of family is according to the ECHR but i imagine a complicit father is required.
I agree that this is a sad situation for Natalie Evans, but that it is both parents' choice, and responsibility, to have a child. I just wonder why the couple chose to store embryos rather than her unfertilized eggs. Any ideas?
This is a good point. Court papers say "at that point J reassured the applicant that they were not going to split up, that she did not need to consider the freezing of her eggs"
Please see section A point 9
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=793163&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=1132746FF1FE2A468ACCBCD1763D4D8149
Nice to see you using the word 'dicks' in your blog - was this a conscious response to that wikipedia bloke's finger-wagging?
Also well done on correctly predicting the outcome of this case, although I'm not sure it had much to do with the legal definition of a family - more to do with Mr Johnson's right not to have a child forced upon him. Taking this ruling to the extreme, couldn't you argue that a pregnant woman should be forced to arbort her pregnancy if the father did not want the child?
I thought the case was decided because they made a clear distinction between embryos inside and outside the womb.
Hattie, it’s a fine line and a question PI cannot confidently answer. There are two issues, the harm an abortion does to the woman and at what point the embryo becomes "human". There will be a point when the potential father's decision not to have a child is taken too late; because the harm it will do to the other parties involved, supersedes his right to make such a decision.
Leo, you may well be correct. The findings are given in the link above. The post tries to focus not on the reasons for the decision but what it might mean if it is ruled in her favour.
Post a Comment