ABOUT allDAY

allDAY is the official TODAY blog, your virtual window to Studio 1A and the people who make America's favorite morning show come alive. Whether it's exchanging views with the anchors and contributors or going behind the scenes with the producers, editors, camera people and more, we'll bring you the buzz here at 30 Rock, and we hope you will make this a regular part of your online routine. We want this to be a conversation, so please respond with your comments and questions directly to the blog, and we'll do our best to post what you have to say.



Live From Studio 1A: Embryo Battle

Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2007 8:30 AM by Dan Fleschner
Filed Under:

This morning, we ran a story on Augusta and Randy Roman, a divorced couple that -- when they were married -- had planned to conceive a child through in-vitro fertilization. 

But divorce complicated their plans and brought about a legal and ethical issue -- what should be done with frozen embryos after a couple gets divorced?

Augusta, her lawyer, and Randy's lawyer also joined Meredith for a live interview this morning. WATCH VIDEO

Doctors had retrieved 13 eggs from Augusta's ovaries, and six had been fertilized with Randy's sperm. But just hours before the embryos were to be implanted into Augusta's womb, Randy got cold feet. He canceled the procedure, and the embryos were frozen while the couple underwent counseling.

Counseling didn't work, and their 6-year marriage soon dissolved.

Augusta has argued that she should be allowed to implant the embryos and attempt to have a child. And she has agreed to absolve Randy of any financial or parental obligations.

Since the couple is no longer together, Randy wants the embryos destroyed -- or at least frozen indefinitely -- and cites a cryopreservation consent form the couple had signed that stipulated that if they were to divorce, the embryos would be discarded.

The Texas Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the case later this year.

Who do you think is right? Should the courts allow her to use the embryos? Should Randy just allow Augusta to use the frozen embryos or should he stand firm?

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

She still has seven frozen eggs she can use with a sperm donor, if she wants a kid that badly. that is a selfish women. she is thinking only of herself instead of thinking about what it might be like to raise a child as a single parent. My guess is, it is spite. Which is typical, really, from many women in this situation. Why does she have to use the eggs fertilized with HIS sperm if there are still seven viable eggs that can be used. There are to many stories out there showing how woman say, they won;t hold the man financially responsible, then come back 10, 12, 15 years later and want years and years of back child support. bitter, angry woman if you ask me.

Larry, Huntington Beach, Ca. (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 1:01 PM)

If she's willing to raise the child on her own with no support then by all means go for it. What does he have to lose? Absolutely nothing!

Sandy, North Palm Beach, Florida (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 1:07 PM)

there was an episode just like this on LAW & ORDER a long time back... spooky. Destroy the eggs and let them go their seperate ways. to have a child now even with no financial obligation will still carry emotional obligation for the father. The mother obviously does not care, she is obviously just looking to spite her ex some more. If she wants to have a baby that bad, have her pick up some college kid at the bar, I'm sure he would be glad to help

Allan Pederson, Lakeland,mn (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 1:07 PM)

These embryos are people, not things, no matter what Texas law says they are. I agree with Charles from MI. If Randy is such an "ethical, religious, and moral person", then he would recognize them as such. Would he have asked his wife to have an abortion if he decided he didn't want to be a "father" after she got pregnant naturally? or after they were implanted? It would be the same principal. A true Christian would not discard the embryos or a fetus. If he can change his mind about not wanting to be father, why can't she change her mind about not wanting the embryos to be discarded? Seems to me Augusta is the one making the more "ethical, religious, and moral" decision here. God gave the medical profession the ability to accomplish just these miracles. Any judge who says the embryos are property for Randy to throw away needs to watch out for lightning to strike...

Grandmother in Missouri. (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 1:19 PM)

She's 46. She probably cannot produce more viable eggs; most women after about 42 cannot. There are not 7 eggs left, either; the 13 eggs led to 7 embryos; the others either did not fertilize or stopped growing. All 13 were likely put with sperm in a dish to fertilize. The other 7 would have been disposed of, as they were not viable. I have done IVF, and these are the basics of it. All the same, I agree that the man has the right not not be a father. I feel terrible for both of them, but I do believe that he has the right to say no.

A.M, Denver (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 1:31 PM)

I am a mother of two children whom mean the world to me. I wanted children more than anything after I got married. I am truely greatful for them and feel I am blessed. I feel sorry for this woman who cannot conceive a child naturally. Having a child that is truely you, a part of you is very special and something to be cherished. However, I can't let my motherly perceptions overtake me on this. The man has decided he does not want to be a father or at least bear children with this woman, and even though she has agreed to free him of all parental responsibilites he still feels that emotionally he would not be able to free himself of those responibilities. I commend him for that. Not all men would or do care enough about their children or the idea of being a father. He has obivously thought about this in great detail. I don't think this is a question of who is right him or her. This is about an innocent child who has no choice in the matter of what kind of life it is brought into. I think they both need to take a step back from their attroney's and the court room and the press and think about this child that could be born into a life where it's parents are already divorced, obiviously have problems with each other, can't even agree on whether the child should be born or not, etc. This should be a matter of what is best for this child, not the could be parents. A child is much to precious to be treated like a new car or house or boat or diamond ring. This is not a case of who gets what property in the divorce. This concerns a real life, a human being, an innocent child who has no voice other than that of its parents. It's time to take a step back, remember the people they were when they first got married, and discuss just how they really feel about this and what would be best for the child, not them. I wish them both happiness and hope that this decision will be decided with the child that could be born in mind first and foremost. My prayers are with them both.

Malaina Mack, Little Rock, AR (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 1:35 PM)

I side with the man,,the contract said should we get divorced eggs would be destroyed why should she now be able to use them,,,,to keep him in her life??? cause she knows that would do it??? how vindictive of her !!!

mary doe tampa fla (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 1:38 PM)

I vote with the gentleman who says the embyros should be donated to a couple who would love them. Then she can use the unferterilzed one along with a donated sperm to have her children. But I really don't think she needs children, to selfcentered. This man should not be forced to be a father. At least he has the sense to realize he doesn't have want it takes to be a father. Children deserve to have someone who wants them.

Sue, Little Rock, AR (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 1:42 PM)

Having gone through IVF several unsuccessful times I understand this woman's need to have a child. However, I think she needs to seek an anonymous donor. Obviously there were issues in their relationship that made her ex-husband put a stop to the implantation. I cannot see any good coming from her having this man's child.

lori, St. Louis, MO (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 1:42 PM)

The eggs were not fertilized in the woman, they were fertilized in a clinic/tube and now exist in a can. They had a contract. She should honor it. A woman does not need the father's permission or even inform him when she wants to get an abortion or to carry a child to term when it involves her body. The man gets child support or no child support at a woman's whim when the fertilization occurs in her body. These fertilized eggs are not in her body, they are in a can. Equal rights apply here without regard to sex of the owners. As such both should abide by their contract. One wants them destroyed, destroy them.

Pat from Texas (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 1:46 PM)

Legally she may not be able to waive all legal obligations of the father. Child support is the right of the child, not the parent, so she could easily whip around and sue him once the kid or kids are born regardless. The state could also go after him even if she won't if she and the kid(s) end up on state assistance. Destroy them or leave them in stasis for all eternity, she can get a real sperm donor or adopt. As to those saying "would he have asked for an abortion once they were implanted?" This guy was smart, he recognized the marriage was not working and he backed out before they were implanted and an abortion was necessary. These kids weren't possible without the medical intervention, he prevented it from happening. The point is he didn't, and now she can't force him to be a father. It's the same principle as from that case in Michigan where the couple divorced after undergoing successful IVF (which produced a son) and the mother then wanted to implant the remaining 5 embryos. The father didn't want any more kids, and he had every right to say no more.

eeyore Washington DC (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 1:49 PM)

There is a CONTRACT. It was signed by both people. The contract says in the event of divorce the embryos would be destroyed. End of story. Stop with all this talk of God because some people don't share the same religious values that you may have. This is what is wrong with the religious right. This is a legal question not a religious dogma question.

Rob K. (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 1:52 PM)

I hate to see children born into a family who does not want them, whatever the case, whatever the belief, whatever the science.

April, Chicago, IL (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 1:55 PM)

It wasn't love, consensual sex or rape. It is a petri dish,test tube, eggs and sperm. On April 20, 2002, the sperm donor withdrew his consent to implant the embryos in the egg donors womb. The embryos are now the property of the clinic. The egg donor wants to have a child, therefore she needs a consenting sperm donor. There are multiple sperm donors, egg donors and couples willing to donate their frozen embryos. At the time of the couples divorce the woman was 40. She had time to find another sperm donor. Why didn't she? Why has she dragged it through the courts all these years? Why is she forcing a man to be a father who does not want her to be his wife or the mother of his children. What if he sued for custody of the embryos, implanted them in his new wife/partner and raised the children without her consent? OMG!!!

Beth (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:07 PM)

I don't think she should be able to use the frozen embryos. The rights of men should hold as much value as that of a woman. If the man does not want to have a child with this woman, he should not be forced to. Sure, she says she won't ask for assistance from the ex-husband now, but maybe she will change her mind just as she did after signing a contract which stated that in the event of a divorce the embryos would be destroyed. The man simple does not want to knowingly bring a child into a volatile situation, which is his choice.

Anna Tee Redford, Michigan (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:13 PM)

First of all, she cannot absolve him of his financial responsibilites. Any contract with such language would be discarded by a family court judge in the "best interest of the child." If she wants a child so badly, then use another man's sperm from a clinic. Why does she so desperately have to have this man's child? Something's definitely not on the up-and-up with this woman.

Bird, Fort Worth (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:13 PM)

These kind of women think they own the world, and the children, born or unborn. NO, she should not be allowed to keep the eggs. Men have rights and some of us are sick and tired of having them trampled because a bunch of whiners complain "this may be her only chance to have children". Well, it just sucks to be her doesn't it? News flash: The world does not revolve around women, in spite of what your mom has told you.

SGA, Brandon, FL (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:36 PM)

No, I do not think that Mrs. Roman should have the right to have the embryos implanted, and whether or not this is her last chance to conceive is irrelevent in my mind. Despite the apparent fact that Mr. Roman would be absolved of his financial responsibilities, there is nothing to stop the child from wanting a relationship with his biological parent and seeking him out later in life, a thing which might not be of emotional benefit to the child or Mr. Roman. I would also have to wonder about the emotional health of a child who is raised by a parent who conceived against the biological father's wishes- how would that be dealt with? This is about an innocent child or CHILDREN for that matter- this sounds a little self serving on the part of Mrs. Roman. Further, there is an apparent contract between the two which states that the embryos would be destroyed in the even of divorce, so clearly, just because Mrs. Roman now wishes to have a child, this does not nullify the prior contractual agreement between she and Mr. Roman.

Kate, Tampa, FL (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:52 PM)

I am a woman and I would have to side with the man, only based on the fact that there was a contract in the beginning to destroy the embryo if the marriage was to end. He wants no legal obligation with this woman and I fully understand. The contract was a very smart move.

Sharon, WDC (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:54 PM)

He already is a father, whether he likes it or not. Those embryos are already individuals who got half of their DNA from him. He voided the contract when he changed his mind about getting them implanted. The whole process of harvesting the eggs and going through the hormone treatments was a lot harder on her than it was on him. She's already agreed to relieve him of any financial responsibility. Refusing to allow her to have children what might be the only way she can ever have them is petty and vindictive.

Christina, Round Rock, TX (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:55 PM)

What if she didn't want to have the embryos implanted, but the father did? Would she be forced to go through with it, for his sake? Why should she be allowed to use the embryos, against his will? I think the contact shoud be honored, apparently this man is ready to put this part of his life behind him and move on. Maybe he never wants to look back, how could he do that with kids involved. If there were no embryos involved in this divorce; and she was able to conceive the natural way,and even though during their marriage they had planned to have children, and now that they are divorcing, you would not force him to still have sex with her so she could get pregnant? First she should just let go and let GOD! She should find herself and love herself, then she should find someone else to love and share her life with. That person should love her enough to share in her desire for children, and perhaps be willing to undergo this procedure with her. At least then her child can be born into a loving,caring environment, and have a father and mother that both love and WANT him or her. Doesn't every child deserve that? Unfortunately, not every child has that, but if it were in our contol as this situation is, wouldn't we see to it?

mmaze,Patterson, La (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:59 PM)

Problem solved! If she's so hot on having and raising children, what is wrong with adoption? Is she trying to say that her own biology does not compare with others? If so, why not? She needs to stop the drama--if she wants children so bad, there are plenty of them, take her pick! How sickening. With so many children needing homes and parents--she thinks her own biology is best? People like her need to sit back and shut their faces. Perhaps BECAUSE of how she thinks--she may not be the best parent...it only stands to reason.

Blond Madison (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 3:21 PM)

Where is the christian right on this one? They were quick to jump in for Terry Shivo.

Michael (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 3:25 PM)

I think this Is Ridiculous. First off if only six of the egg's were fertilized doe's she not have 7 left?.Secondly What ever happened to equal right's why should she be allowed to use his D.N.A to make her a baby now put that on the other foot women would be up in arms if a man found a surragate mother and used his Ex wife's egg's to bear a child. Really can he not have control of how his own D.N.A come on you what it's gonna be next "ok I want his fingers" or " I want every peice of her hair she will ever grow" If that sounds stupid then that is what this whole situation is.

Ron,Detroit,MI (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 3:26 PM)

I think the man in this case in a liar. I'm willing to bet he wasn't trying to be a father in the first place. He got caught in a lie, and tried to pull out at the last minute (no pun intended). I don't know why she would want to have kids with him knowing how he truly is, but if she wants them she should be able to raise them. They've been in existance for 4 years! They deserve to live.

Michael McDonald (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 3:36 PM)

Well, well, well once again I see we all have a problem when the same three phrases or words are grouped in the same sentence: Science (cryopreservation), Legal (consent), and Fertilization (embryo or child)/when does life begin. Sounds like a new kind of Roe vs. Wade starting all over again for the first time. Oh, I left out the good and practical sprinkling of various religions, practices, and beliefs.

Mommy in Maine (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 3:37 PM)

Why would a woman even want a child from a man she's already divorced? And why is this even in the courts if the embryos were supposed to be destroyed if they got divorced. We can't continue to support an entire society that wants to have it both ways. Men have rights too, and let's not forget the unborn son or daughter he might have to one day explain this to. Is that fair to him? To his possible child? Not even close. She needs to just get out of this relationship completely, drop the crap and move on.

sm (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 3:37 PM)

Wow, I really don't think the man is the liar in this case. It seems more likely that he was trying to go along with what his wife wanted, but luckily realized in time that it wasn't what he wanted after all. I think that was incredibly honest of him, because it probably would have been easier to just go along with what she wanted to do. The sad thing is, he realized he didn't want to do it any more, and now the courts are going to decide whether or not he will become a father. It's just unfortunate that he didn't stop things before the embryos were created, even though the contract said they would be destroyed and he thought he had time to change his mind. But I'm sure he never thought that his ex-wife would want to still have a child with him as the father after the marriage ended so traumatically. You can't put things back together again, and she should just move on with another man, or another plan.

Texas parent (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 3:45 PM)

Discard the embryos. If the woman truly wants to become a parent there is the option of adopting. Many truely wanting children are available to a LOVING household. As far as any legal contracts involving the current embryos are concerned I am of the opinion that either of these two individuals will do whatever they deem necessary to hurt the other. So inferring that no financial or other respondsibilities will be forthcoming leaves me with serious questions about the willingness to really follow through with these promises.

D Kendall, Oregon (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 3:59 PM)

It is so funny reading everyone's comments about what should and should not be done. It is just sad no matter how you look at it, it is a no-win situation. But at the end of the day, I have to agree to the blogger that suggested donating those eggs to other "couples" who want to have children via IVF. But.. what do I know? I have been both the single parent and the parent with a spouse, and being a single parent was not as hard as everyone makes it out to be. It is what it is and what you do with it is how you get results.

CS, Santa Clarita, CA (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 4:07 PM)

The gentleman (?) needs to just ignore the child as so many sperm donors do. The child has already been conceived. Done deal. The woman should be able to have the eggs and thats all there is to that!

nurse, kokomo, Indiana (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 4:08 PM)

No, i do not think she should be allowed the rights to those embryos. She may absolve him of a financial burden now, but what about later when she "changes her mind" again and decides to take him to court for child support? I also do not feel that this is any way to bring a child into the world and he obviously does not want to have children with her, but would not want to disown a child that was his own flesh and blood. I think she needs to seek other options at this point to either get pregnant or adopt.

Michelle, Harrisburg, PA (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 4:25 PM)

Two terminated pregnancies, two failed marriages, two countries of citizenship (originally nigerian)and five years later, we are tying up the courts with a lawsuit forcing a man, divorced from the mother, to be a father and parent. Could he force her to have the babies if she didn't want too? NO NO NO! She should go back to nigeria and adopt one, two or three of the thousands of orphans running around there. This is absolutely ridiculous. She had many chances before and now that her biological clock has stopped she is using the courts to give her a child. You can't unring a bell that has already rung. This is a disgrace!

Mom in Texas (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 4:31 PM)

If she is that hell-bent over becoming pregnant, she should honor the contract to destroy the embryos (or have them permanently frozen) and use her eggs with donor sperm to create embryo's to implant. This man has every right to NOT become a parent-- whether she wants to absolve him or not. According to him, if he's a father, then he's a father- absolution doesn't change the fact that he'd have a biological child out there.

Rebecca, Cincinnati, Ohio (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 4:45 PM)

No, she should not be able to use the Embryo's , That's the agreement that protects alla parties involved.

Wayne (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 4:48 PM)

No way should she be allowed to use the embryos. There was a contract. The contract stated they were not to be used in case of divorce. If she is given permission, she will have all six implanted and where does this guy stand when he is presented with six children. This scenario is not so far fetched. I understand that women are encouraged to do multiple implantations in case of failure of some. No way, no how should she get permission to use. This is a very slippery slope.

Florida Fox (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 4:54 PM)

iam sorry.iam awoman.but i stand with this man. she should not have the embryos.Why make children with his sperm when she couldn't make the relationship smooth.I sther any rights for a man in this country.This is ridiculuos.If she want to be pregnant there are other ways to do so

a mother,gaithersburg, maryland (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 4:56 PM)

My husband and I also have frozen embryos. Before the retrieval even takes place, you sign a form that very specifically asks what should be done with the embryos in case of death of one of the partners, as well as divorce. They both signed a legally binding document and the embryos should not be used. My heart goes out to her, I know how emotional and hard this must be for her, but she signed a document and her ex has the right to not become a parent, those eggs are half his.

Nancy, Louisville, KY (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 4:57 PM)

I think that if he has any feelings left for her AT ALL, he wouldn't deny her the change to conceive. He has the chance to produce many, many children in his life but, at 46, this is her last change to produce a biological child. Does he have no compassion for the women he once call "wife"? Does he have absolutely no feelings left for her? He must hate her a great deal to deny her the remote change to have her own child. I would hope that a man I once cared for, cooked for, cleaned up for, would still have even the smallest amount of compassion left for me even after a divorce. It's not about what is legal or illegal, it's about allowing a woman you once loved a change for a child. Where is his heart?

Diana Jones, Sprinfield, MO (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 5:30 PM)

I am a woman and I have to side with the man on this. Granted, they are her eggs, but she wouldn't have the ability to do IVF had he not "donated" his sperm. They contributed equally. Technically, he contributed more to the cause than need be. It only takes one sperm to fertilize an egg, and I'm almost certain he donated more than one sperm to each egg. Last time I checked, if you didn't want your ex-spouse to have financial or parental obligation, they had to sign those things away. She just wants them for her own selfishness. She needs to get over herself!

Cyndi, Tuscaloosa, AL (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 5:31 PM)

I agree with the majority of posts thus far. I don't think she should be able to use the frozen embryos. Furthermore, I was absolutely outraged by the commentary that her attorney made that he doesn't have to be involved with the care of the child if he doesn't want to or that he could "step up to the plate." He should not have to be forced to become a parent as he maturely understands the responsibilities as expressed by his lawyer. Simply put, this woman is a "piece of work" - he's lucky he got out of that marriage.

LT, New York, NY (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 5:33 PM)

Adopt. If the woman really has a heart to be a parent, there are plenty of children who are already here and would be happy to have her as a mother. She needs to decide how important being a "mother" is to her.

Shanta, California (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 6:06 PM)

I personally think that she should be given the rights to the embryos. Because usually when they implant the eggs 9 to 10 the mother have multiple births. And if he is a good man, how could he turn his back on a child or children that are biologically his? The relationship is over, so she should move on and find someone else who wants to be with her as well as have children.

Jane Doe Houston,TX (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 6:10 PM)

One word NO!! end of conversation.

NoNameNeeded (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 6:32 PM)

There are a couple of reasons why she wouldn't want to adopt Elizabeth, Towson. One is that she may want a child that would be biologically linked to her and her mate. And two, the one I believe is the secret in the closet is that they wouldn't be able to decide what type of baby they want. Have you ever wondered why are people going overseas to adopt when there are alot of kids in adoption in the US. One is that you can't choose what race your baby is in american adoptions unless you try private. You go to an adoption agency and ask for a blond haired, blue eyed boy and they will tell you that can't choose them like that. It's almost a taboo to say this but it's perceived that the child must have some problems if there parents put it up for adoption in the US, (Crack baby, Abuse, Burned the parents house down, etc.). Look at how Angelina Jolie goes to all of these countries to adopt but there are tons of children in the US to adopt. That says something there about what people think of adopting kids in the US. We consider them throwaways. And for Lady fighting over her embryos, I think they should be destroyed. The reason is that even though she said that he isn't obligated financially if she has the children, whats to stop her from fighting for it again some time in the future. Family Courts have ruled against said contractual statements before, for the good of the child. I think he knows it and she knows it. I have always said that this invitro process would someday cause grief for the female and the male of our species.

Buck Johnson (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 6:39 PM)

I too thought of the woman who right now wants to have children. The mean old man (as usual) dosn't want to have children with her. Let her have the eggs so when she changes her mind eight months down the road she too could use her constitutional rights and have a partial birth abortion to get back at her husband. I know in California an agreement for non support of any kind for children agreed by both parties forever can be changed by going to court and just asking.

Angelo, Johnstown, Ca. (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 6:40 PM)

I am appalled that some of you dear people side with the woman because of her slim chances of conceiving. That is no longer her ex husband's problem. To force him to become a father with a woman he no longer loves(or even likes) is a great disservice to the child, and in my opinion, tantamout to raping the man. Life is very complex these days, and it takes a very stable single person, both financially and otherwise to be a proper parent; this woman is selfish and "needs" to have a baby, as opposed to wanting one that comes along as many babies do( not planned).

Petite Loup (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 6:48 PM)

If she could have gotten pregnant the natural way, there would have been a child. In this case, the woman is entitled to have a child. I have to wonder what the man would have done if a child was produced the natural way, send it back to its orgin. UMMM.

Richad Frazier, Gillette WY (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 7:01 PM)

the cells are no more a person than I'm G-d. these embryos consist of fewer cells than the number of cells you shed when you wash your hands. the chances of these embryos attach and start to develop upon being implanted are small and on top of that, there is a significant chance they won't continue develop through to birth. Then what? she'd be nagging about the pain and suffering of seeing her embryos going down the drain?? yes, it may be painful for her but these embryos are no more her property than they are his property. get over it, find a new guy she can obsess about and perhaps she'll find the right time and opportunity to conceive babies with a man she loves

chris, Tacoma, WA (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 7:10 PM)

first of all there is a concenesual contract that the eymbryos be distroyed in the event there is a divorce therefore so be it this 31st day of may in the year of 2007 those eggs should be cracked and discarded secondly those of you who so freely give your opinions then dont have the guts to give your real names and locations really dont count for much anyway

R.Edelen New Albany , In (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 7:39 PM)



SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

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

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.): 

 Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private)

More allDAY

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories

Syndicate This Site

Add allDAY to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google

MSNBC Weblogs

More Links