Yes she should be allowed to use the embryos. This might possibly be her only way to have children and it is obviously very important to her to do so or she would have never started the process to begin with. If she is willing to forgo any financial obligations from Randy then why should she be precluded from using something that technically is as much hers as his? I understand that he would want to be a "father figure" to any children he might sire, so might they not possibly work something out. Looks like she'd be willing to if she really wants a baby. Seems to me that he is just being vindictive. He's a guy, no real biological clock there. He should cut her some slack here.

No the embryos should be discarded as the man & contract allow. The child if born may try to seek him out in the furture. He may not want to have that kind of drama in his life, nor should he. Men still have rights in this country don't they?

No she should not be allowed to use the embryos. He should not be a father if he does not want to be and since it is his sperm that was used, he too, should have a choice. I am sorry that this is the only way she can have kids, life is not always fair.

No, these are effectively property, and there are GIGANTIC implications to this property. For once a man has the ability to decide if a child is going to be born, and if the courts decide to deprive him of this right it will be entirely sexist. He basically is being given the right to abort an embryo.

Do those embryos even still belong to the couple According to the contract, it seems that they now belong to the clinic. The couple divorced, and they waived their rights to the embryos when they agreed that any embryos would be destroyed in the case of divorce. So the clinic should dispose of them as the contract states. I applaud this man for fighting for his parental rights, which should include his right to NOT become a parent. His ex-wife shouldn't be forcing him to be a parent against his will; parenting is not just a legal and financial obligation that she can absolve him of if she chooses to. What about his choices? He shouldn't be forced to have biological children with someone he doesn't want to be a co-parent with.

This is no way for a child to start his or her life. This woman's plan is for her own happiness, not the child's. The man should not be forced to have a child with a woman he doesn't want to impregnate. And she signed a consent to this arrangement.

I understand that she wants to get pregnant still but this would be on this poor man's shoulder to know that he had a child out there. I do not blame him for not wanting her to conceive his child. If she still wants to get pregnant they have sperm donors. That would be a chance that she would have to take. If my husband and I got divorced I would not want to have a child by him. That is crazy!!!

Basically, the embryos are NOT property since they are, in essence, the beginning of life. Therefore they should be left in stasis, and both parents should bear the financial, and emotional, burden of having supported the process to begin with, and the resulting implications and ramifications as they would if the embroyo(s) were brought to fruition.

I am a woman but I side with the man on this. It not right to bring a child in this world under those condenations starting out.

I think daddy should have thought about this a little longer before allowing his sperm to be planted in her embryo. As for people not wanting to be parents it happens all the time. The woman is willing to absolve him of all parental, custodial and financial responsibility. For those worried the kid is going to come back in 18 years well, what kid is going to want to meet the father who fought in court to not have him/her born? None...contracts are fine well and good until they are contested. That's what great about our nation we allegedly have a court system that will fairly mete out judgments in circumstances we cannot decide on our own. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Since when is it an option to force a man to become a father? I am all for a man being responsible for his actions when a thoughtless encounter leads to an unexpected child, but this is a completely different situation. There is no reason for this man to become a father, and it is only through medical intervention that he would. His rights would be completely disregarded if this were to occur.

The man may find it morally difficult to have a child he does not want to father. At the same time, spare a thought for the difficult traumatic and painful process that the woman went through to get to the stage where they have fertilized embryos. In the process of IVF, the man really bears almost no pain and has the trivial job of providing sperm... men can do this all the time with nary a thought. Spare a thought for the woman who has to go through an extremely expensive process of stimulation and retrieval. While the embryo is joint ownership when developed, the effort to create it clearly requires extremely asymmetric levels of contribution from a woman and a man. As a man I believe a woman should have the final say in this matter. They put up with hell to get there...

So Sad! These embryos are humane life but should not be allowed to come into this world under these circumstances. The courts should transfer custody of these embryos to The Snowflakes Embryo Adoption Program- through Nightlite.org. There are many (Healthy) families that would love to adopt these embryos and bring these kids into a loving home environment.

I sympathize with the woman but I have to side with the man on this one. We have enough unwanted children in this world. She says that she will not hold him financially responsible for any support from him, yea right, just like now shes reniging on the signed contract she had to destroy the embroys. what make us think that she wont change her mind and pursue him financially down the road???

The embryos should be discarded just as the contract states. This woman knew what she was getting into when she signed the contract. Her ex-husband should not be forced to become a father. If this woman wants a child so badly, she can adopt. I don't know why people are so obsessed with having biological children.

If a couple has relations with the intent to get pregnant, can the man get then get cold feet and force the woman to have an abortion? Is this scenario really different? The couple used technology to combine sperm & egg to create an embryo instead of "the old fashioned way". They had planning & forethought and have now created a life. Then again, is it morally correct to intentially become a single parent? Hmm.... I'm not sure I can really pick a side in this one

People who have not gone through IVF and have no idea of the amount of trauma involved especially for the women should not even be commenting on this. Very easy to be armchair experts on property rights without knowing what hell it is to go through this

No, he should not be forced to be a dad. If she wants children then go find a sperm donor and start the process all over again. Yes it is very costly, but so are lawyers and court cost. She could be pregnant by time the higher court decides.

I believe she should let the embryos go.Why make children with his sperm when you couldn't make the relationship work? She should just move on & completely let the man go including his sperm as well. It sounds to me that both parties are playing b/c both parties know that their arguments about it are understandable regardless of the view.She is bitter b/c she was looking forward to having a life & family with him & b/c they couldn't make it work he is bitter that she will still have a part of him at least for the next18years.She should let that man be cuz if it is meant for her to have a child God will give her one. I think her fight is more inline with wanting to keep her husband but why not fight for him as hard as you are fighting for his sperm!

Some problems have no legal solutions. Just be humane and let her have what may be her only chance at procreation. Just think of yourself as a donor who did someone a favor. I am sure you waste your sperm elsewhere in ample quantities without giving it a second thought

Life begins at conception. The baby is already here, it just isn't born yet. If she were already carrying the child in her womb when the divorce occured, he couldn't have forced her to have abortion. He shouldn't be able to force her to have an abortion now simply because the embryo(BABY)wasn't implanted yet.

She has every right to have a baby, but not with his sperm. He's made it clear that he doesn't want a child with her. She needs to find an anonymous sperm donor.

I have to side with the man in this. She is thinking of herself and nobody else. In the end it will be the child who loses.

Man to Man... Cut her some slack. She has worked much harder than you and gone through more physical, and emotional trauma to get to this stage... And it will not be easy even financially and physically for her to go through another stimulation cycle with some donor sperm.. Think of it if nothing else as a humane task you did for good Karma..

Phil from Texas, according to the law the embryos ARE property. In fact, you could say that God did not even create these embryos, man did. You could further argue that if God had wanted this woman to have children, she would have conceived in a natural way. Maybe this case is a sign that it's time science took a step back and allowed nature to take its course instead of interfering and creating life in an unnatural method.

Let the man go. He does not want you. Adopt.

Let me get this straight, she wants out of the agreement wherein the embryos would be destroyed in the event of divorce, yet this man is to trust her, in good faith that he would be held free of responsiblity from any child she has using these embryos? Yeah, ok, sure. I do believe that women have a constitutional right to their eggs, they are theirs, as does a man with his sperm. However, her lawyer's argument has a HUGE hole in it. These aren't eggs(unfertilized), these are embryos. That means some one else is involved. End of story.

My first thought was to side with the man in this case, but after really thinking about this...I think that he made the decision to become a father when he created these embryos with his then wife. These are living embryos now. Had he gone thru with implanting one years ago when they were still married, would he try to give the child back now? You can't give children back just because you get cold feet. Basically, people need to take this type of committment way more seriously and think long and hard about the consequences later in life. This is basically a matter of life or death, since you state that the clinic has a right to simply "DISPOSE" of them. This thought actually brings tears to my eyes. Just "DISPOSE" of your children if you don't want them anymore? What is this world coming to?

I don't know either of these people but after hearing the women I would say to her "take a step back, think real hard about this one and don't go there". I hope I'm wrong but I think I can detect a bit of hate, yes I said hate, in here voice. She says she would relieve him of all financial responsibility but millions of want to be fathers out there would give there eyeteeth to be called "DAD" no matter how much it costs. Not all men are deadbeat Dad's and many of us women know this. Sometimes women use the children to get back at the ex-husband and hold the child over his head as sign of their failure in the marriage. That is why the infamous DNA test has become so popular. If there are three embryos’ left I believe she would have all three born to get back at him for some reason and keep him hanging. If she loved these unborn children she would set this man, this marriage, and this part of her life free. Yes, I said free because in the end she might be the one closed in being held hostage with no one to save her but herself. If she is after lost money that they both would have made together I would tell her to forget it and go out and make your own pot of gold. There is something worse than not having the man that used snore in your ear not come home anymore. It is having his children, living in a big house and all you see from him is weekend visits to get the kids and cold alimony checks. When what she really wants is the man but that isn't an option. Men no longer stay or come back because of the children. Even if he did return for the children sake that would not mean his heart was in the same house with his wife and if it wasn’t there than who needs a ghost husband. This is an area that women have got to get more power in and take control of their own destiny. I would like to tell her to walk away with grudges, capitalize on all lessons learned but take no collateral damage and bringing children into a loveless situation would damage the life of an innocent human being. Surely her lawyer has counseled her about other options like the Sperm Bank or foster/adoption. If she were to foster and adopt a child that would be like saving a life that has been abandoned and really needs a lot of love.

I don't know how contract law would inevitably apply, but I am firmly in the camp that thinks the woman should be allowed to attempt to have children with her own eggs. As for the man, once he consented to create life in vitro and the sperm left his body, he pretty much gave up control of the situation in my opinion. Another poster said life's not fair sometimes. Well, that's right. These are her eggs, fertilized or otherwise. Now that we are medically advanced enought to have to wrestle with these issues, those without uteri are simply at a disadvantage because to confer equal parental rights on the party whose contribution to creating life is so comparativley minimal is tantamount to crediting the paint maker with Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel. Until the law catches up with technology and we decide whether or not we are going to treat frozen life as chattel, those with the ability and responsibility to gestate get to say what happens.

Embyros are the begining of life and no one has the right to take a life or own life. Only God has that right because he created it.Does anyone remember that Nazi doctors used women and men as guinea pigs? Here we are about to do the same over 5o years later deciding who lives or dies.

The women should absolutely not be allowed to use these embryo's. I feel for her as she cannot concieve in the natural way, but her ex-husband shouldnt have to continue a relationship that has ended because of her infirtility. It would be completely unfair to the child and to the ex-husband who, because he would want to be part of the childs life then becomes obligated to stay in her's. There are many children in this country and others that need parents. She had the money to have this procedure done, I think that she should consider adoption. Or maybe she should just re examine her reasons for wanting a child in the first place.

There is a document signed by both parties to the agreement that should they change their mind the embryos would be destroyed. Divorce is a reasonable good reason to be bound by their signed document.The Ex-wife has no right to the Embryos. She signed it away.

There is information that we don't have. Does SHE still have eggs...then so fine...the embryos can be destroyed as previously agreed. IF she is so desperate to have a child she can have the proceedure again with a sperm doner. If she has no harvestable eggs then she really needs a very solid agreement that HE would have no responsibility financially, morally or otherwise to the child(ren) she bears. Even with that...if she's capable of carrying a child it seems as though she could use a doner embryo...they have "surrogants" so it seems like it would be the same process. I think SHE is just as vengencful as HE is. I summerize above. IF she really wanted to be a mother. She could have the proceedure again, or HELLO...Adopt!

"what kid is going to want to meet the father who fought in court to not have him/her born" Me.. and it was 26 years later. But moving on. Essentially this is rape. He should not be forced to impregnate someone even on a clinical level. If this was a woman who did not want kids but the man did, the woman would get her wish hands down. I think she is selfish and is clearly not thinking about the "children" I was a single mother and it's not easy. I also just recently met my bio father, that ain't no walk in the park either.

1. If the embryos are "property" then they should be divided equally, each person making their own decision as to what to do with their property. 2.If the embryos are to be considered "children" then these children have already been created and men do not have the "right" to destroy their children at any stage of development, contract or no contract. Therefore his "rights" were not disregarded, he excercised his right to become a father when he supplied sperm for the express purpose of creating life. He shouldn't get to change his mind now, contract or not.

As a woman, I can understand the desire to have a child, but just as a man cannot force a woman to have an abortion, or stop her from having an abortion, this woman has no right to force this man to become a father. It is quite obvious that had the marriage worked out, he would have been willing to be a father. Therefore, one assumes that he does not which to have a child outside of a normal happy marriage/relationship. I agree wholeheartedly with the man.

The eggs must be distroyed , Period! orhow would they like to be cut in half so each parent can ,do what they want with thier dead embros halfs,, either flush them down the toilet or put them in a safe keeping jar for memory sake! But no way should a child be brought into this world

I'm a woman also, but agree with the man. I wonder if the woman in this case has considered what she would tell the child when it grows up?

The woman should be allowed to keep the embryos. Bringing a child into such a stressful relationship will be challenging. But, killing the embryos is just wrong.

As a blessed Mom through IVF, I understand her desire to still have the embryos for future implantation but their contract was written and signed to destroy those embryos in the case of divorce. Releasing him from financial responsibility is all fine and well but there is so much more to being a parent than that. Sorry but I agree with him and they should be destroyed.

These embryos are property and no longer belong to the two people who created them. They contractually belong to the clinic, and the clinic should destroy them as the contract states. Again, God did not create these embryos, man's science did. There's not even any guarantee that the implantation of these embryos would leave to live births, so it doesn't make sense to call them children. The only way the could be considered "life" is if they are implanted and result in a live birth. That has not, and should not, happen in this case.

Since there is documentation regarding the husband's not wanting his dna used, the woman should not be allowed to have the fertilized portion, only access to what was her's in the beginning. The eggs (undiluted) as it were. She can find another sperm donor if this is her wish.

He had every right to change his mind before the procedure took place. If roles were reversed and she had changed her mind before the procedure and called it off. What would you say if it was him trying to have a court force her to become pregnant with the embryos. If you give her the right to have the child then you give the man the right to make a woman have the baby if she changes her mind. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. They both knew that they could change their minds before implanting when they both signed to have the embryos discarded in case of divorce. Neither one of them have a right to the embryo's now. She shouldn't be able to make him become a father just like he can't make her become a mother.

In no way should Augusta be allowed to use Randy's sperm for her own uses. The contract is clear. She can have a child by getting a volunteer to donate sperm.

OK 13 eggs retrieved of that six were made embryo so in a divorce she gets 1/2 and he gets 1/2 what each does is there choice if she want to take the three and implant them it is hers to choose. If he destroys his three then when he meets god, he will have to explain that choice to him not to any of us here. In any case, there are still seven eggs left. If she remarries these are there for her to have a child with a new father if he wants one with her. In no means would I want to be in either person shoes. However, each will have to do as they see fit and answer to God when the time comes. His should be a private matter to be decided by each party and not one of public to choose for them. I hope both side will choose the right thing to do.

I side with the man in this case. At the time of the embryo's being frozen they signed a contract with exactly what was to happen. No one should force this man to become a father, even without the legal requirement of paying child support he is still the father. If she wants a child so badly there are many out there in this country who would love to be adopted.

If she is not able to get the embyros through court order, I have several frozen ones that I will be willing to donate. I am not able to conceive after having surgery. I have 1 year old twins and happy. Instead of destroying them, I would love to donate them to her.

Perhaps it's best, now that the embryos have been created, to offer them up for adoption.

I don't understand what is in dispute here. They signed an agreement that the embyros would be discarded if they got divorced. She should have to abide by that agreement. If she wants to still have a baby by in-vitro, then she can get donor sperm.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):