http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx 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 ethicalen-USCommunityServer 2.0 (Build: 60608.1)http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209543Thu, 31 May 2007 13:33:27 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209543C York, Danville ARYes 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209554Thu, 31 May 2007 13:41:17 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209554John Gunn Long Beach CANo 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? http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209558Thu, 31 May 2007 13:47:20 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209558A Mackey, Normal, IL.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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209562Thu, 31 May 2007 13:49:25 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209562RobertNo, 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209566Thu, 31 May 2007 13:53:37 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209566Texas parentDo 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209572Thu, 31 May 2007 13:56:20 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209572M. Safley, Oceanside, CAThis 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209573Thu, 31 May 2007 13:56:34 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209573T Graham,Atlanta,GAI 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!!!http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209583Thu, 31 May 2007 14:05:57 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209583Phil, Dallas TXBasically, 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209591Thu, 31 May 2007 14:11:03 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209591shanna, ArkI 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. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209606Thu, 31 May 2007 14:23:27 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209606Nunya, PHXAZI 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209614Thu, 31 May 2007 14:28:32 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209614Brandie H, Portland, ORSince 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209616Thu, 31 May 2007 14:30:56 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209616John Doe, Seattle, WashThe 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...http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209620Thu, 31 May 2007 14:32:14 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209620Jason, Silverdale WASo 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. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209623Thu, 31 May 2007 14:34:38 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209623E.SuarezI 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???http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209627Thu, 31 May 2007 14:35:28 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209627Elizabeth, Towson, MDThe 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209635Thu, 31 May 2007 14:40:31 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209635Jim, Post Falls, IDIf 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 onehttp://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209636Thu, 31 May 2007 14:41:13 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209636Matt H, San Diego, CAPeople 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 thishttp://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209641Thu, 31 May 2007 14:42:29 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209641having trouble myself, TexasNo, 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209646Thu, 31 May 2007 14:46:55 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209646GabriallI 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!http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209650Thu, 31 May 2007 14:47:42 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209650Sally LakeSome 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 thoughthttp://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209652Thu, 31 May 2007 14:48:30 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209652J Thornberry, Reno, NVLife 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. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209654Thu, 31 May 2007 14:49:54 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209654Pamela, Atlanta, GAShe 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209655Thu, 31 May 2007 14:50:05 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209655Jenn Oakland, RII 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. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209668Thu, 31 May 2007 14:56:52 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209668Vikram ChawlaMan 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.. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209670Thu, 31 May 2007 14:58:54 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209670Texas parentPhil 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209672Thu, 31 May 2007 15:01:28 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209672ChrisLet the man go. He does not want you. Adopt.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209679Thu, 31 May 2007 15:04:34 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209679ShaunLet 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209683Thu, 31 May 2007 15:06:45 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209683Cheryl, MassachusettsMy 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? http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209684Thu, 31 May 2007 15:07:29 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209684Single Parent, FloridaI 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. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209687Thu, 31 May 2007 15:08:39 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209687NB, Altamonte Springs, FLI 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. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209688Thu, 31 May 2007 15:08:49 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209688Charles E. Sornig Waterford,Mi.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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209692Thu, 31 May 2007 15:12:00 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209692AMANDA SCHULTZ, BIRMINGHAM, MICHIGNAThe 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. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209723Thu, 31 May 2007 15:26:51 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209723Bennie Jo Bassett, Talladega, Al.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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209725Thu, 31 May 2007 15:27:32 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209725Kimberly, San Antonio, TexasThere 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!http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209729Thu, 31 May 2007 15:27:58 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209729A"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. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209730Thu, 31 May 2007 15:29:18 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209730Lan, Richland, WA1. 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. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209738Thu, 31 May 2007 15:33:53 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209738JoanAs 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209743Thu, 31 May 2007 15:36:42 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209743Louise DowningThe 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 worldhttp://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209747Thu, 31 May 2007 15:39:44 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209747Sandi, Columbia, MdI'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? http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209753Thu, 31 May 2007 15:41:38 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209753KM, TenneseeeThe 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209769Thu, 31 May 2007 15:53:13 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209769IVF Mom, MarylandAs 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209775Thu, 31 May 2007 15:56:28 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209775Texas parentThese 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209814Thu, 31 May 2007 16:15:20 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209814Lady LesterSince 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. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209815Thu, 31 May 2007 16:15:59 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209815Texas Mama, TexasHe 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209821Thu, 31 May 2007 16:19:30 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209821Rick Ericson, San Diego, CaIn 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209828Thu, 31 May 2007 16:21:57 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209828Joe Lebanon PAOK 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. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209834Thu, 31 May 2007 16:23:46 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209834Beth, New York, NYI 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209837Thu, 31 May 2007 16:25:39 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209837R. Tomedonou, GeorgiaIf 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. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209853Thu, 31 May 2007 16:33:37 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209853DGPerhaps it's best, now that the embryos have been created, to offer them up for adoption.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209879Thu, 31 May 2007 16:52:39 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209879D, Baltimore, MDI 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209890Thu, 31 May 2007 17:01:35 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209890Larry, Huntington Beach, Ca.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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209905Thu, 31 May 2007 17:07:01 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209905Sandy, North Palm Beach, FloridaIf 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!http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209908Thu, 31 May 2007 17:07:33 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209908Allan Pederson, Lakeland,mnthere 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 helphttp://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209920Thu, 31 May 2007 17:19:52 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209920Grandmother in Missouri.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... http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209932Thu, 31 May 2007 17:31:33 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209932A.M, DenverShe'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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209939Thu, 31 May 2007 17:35:37 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209939Malaina Mack, Little Rock, ARI 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. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209942Thu, 31 May 2007 17:38:25 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209942mary doe tampa flaI 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 !!!http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209948Thu, 31 May 2007 17:42:01 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209948Sue, Little Rock, ARI 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. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209949Thu, 31 May 2007 17:42:19 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209949lori, St. Louis, MOHaving 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209955Thu, 31 May 2007 17:46:31 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209955Pat from TexasThe 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209957Thu, 31 May 2007 17:49:18 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209957eeyore Washington DCLegally 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209959Thu, 31 May 2007 17:52:15 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209959Rob K.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. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209967Thu, 31 May 2007 17:55:54 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209967April, Chicago, ILI hate to see children born into a family who does not want them, whatever the case, whatever the belief, whatever the science. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209984Thu, 31 May 2007 18:07:25 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209984BethIt 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!!! http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209990Thu, 31 May 2007 18:13:13 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209990Anna Tee Redford, MichiganI 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#209991Thu, 31 May 2007 18:13:24 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:209991Bird, Fort WorthFirst 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210026Thu, 31 May 2007 18:36:03 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210026SGA, Brandon, FLThese 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. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210053Thu, 31 May 2007 18:52:53 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210053Kate, Tampa, FLNo, 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210055Thu, 31 May 2007 18:54:28 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210055Sharon, WDCI 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210057Thu, 31 May 2007 18:55:21 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210057Christina, Round Rock, TXHe 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210066Thu, 31 May 2007 18:59:20 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210066mmaze,Patterson, LaWhat 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? http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210111Thu, 31 May 2007 19:21:43 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210111Blond MadisonProblem 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210116Thu, 31 May 2007 19:25:39 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210116MichaelWhere is the christian right on this one? They were quick to jump in for Terry Shivo. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210117Thu, 31 May 2007 19:26:50 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210117Ron,Detroit,MII 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. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210134Thu, 31 May 2007 19:36:06 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210134Michael McDonaldI 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210135Thu, 31 May 2007 19:37:05 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210135Mommy in MaineWell, 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. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210136Thu, 31 May 2007 19:37:58 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210136smWhy 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210144Thu, 31 May 2007 19:45:23 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210144Texas parentWow, 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210179Thu, 31 May 2007 19:59:56 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210179D Kendall, OregonDiscard 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210190Thu, 31 May 2007 20:07:07 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210190CS, Santa Clarita, CAIt 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210194Thu, 31 May 2007 20:08:51 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210194nurse, kokomo, Indiana 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!http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210216Thu, 31 May 2007 20:25:44 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210216Michelle, Harrisburg, PANo, 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210224Thu, 31 May 2007 20:31:32 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210224Mom in TexasTwo 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! http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210238Thu, 31 May 2007 20:45:19 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210238Rebecca, Cincinnati, OhioIf 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210243Thu, 31 May 2007 20:48:18 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210243WayneNo, she should not be able to use the Embryo's , That's the agreement that protects alla parties involved.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210248Thu, 31 May 2007 20:54:21 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210248Florida FoxNo 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. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210251Thu, 31 May 2007 20:56:42 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210251a mother,gaithersburg, marylandiam 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 http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210253Thu, 31 May 2007 20:57:12 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210253Nancy, Louisville, KYMy 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. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210286Thu, 31 May 2007 21:30:03 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210286Diana Jones, Sprinfield, MOI 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?http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210287Thu, 31 May 2007 21:31:17 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210287Cyndi, Tuscaloosa, ALI 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! http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210289Thu, 31 May 2007 21:33:30 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210289LT, New York, NYI 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. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210321Thu, 31 May 2007 22:06:06 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210321Shanta, CaliforniaAdopt. 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210322Thu, 31 May 2007 22:10:22 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210322 Jane Doe Houston,TXI 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210343Thu, 31 May 2007 22:32:19 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210343NoNameNeededOne word NO!! end of conversation.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210347Thu, 31 May 2007 22:39:23 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210347Buck JohnsonThere 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210348Thu, 31 May 2007 22:40:58 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210348Angelo, Johnstown, Ca.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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210359Thu, 31 May 2007 22:48:43 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210359Petite LoupI 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). http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210373Thu, 31 May 2007 23:01:06 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210373Richad Frazier, Gillette WYIf 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.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210384Thu, 31 May 2007 23:10:00 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210384chris, Tacoma, WAthe 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 loveshttp://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210407Thu, 31 May 2007 23:39:51 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210407R.Edelen New Albany , Infirst 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 http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210432Fri, 01 Jun 2007 00:02:48 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210432North Texas MomI absolutely side with the man on this one. If the situation were reversed, there would be no possibility of him using his ex-wife's eggs implanted in a surrogate so he could have a child. And please leave religion out of this. This is a legal matter, not an argument over when life begins. We all have our own opinions about that, but none of them are relevant to this decision. No one, male or female, should be forced to be a parent. And the writer who stated that in Texas, a contract releasing a parent from financial responsibility could be overturned by the state is correct. It's not worth the paper it's written on.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210442Fri, 01 Jun 2007 00:21:12 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210442Deb, Montgomery, ALI think a lot of people commenting here don't realize that at 46 this woman does not have viable eggs to have a child with someone else's sperm, and what is frozen is not her eggs, but EMBRYOS. They are already fertilized babies in suspended animation. This man ALREADY agreed to have babies with this woman, it is too late for him to take it back. you can put a lot of things down on paper and spout what is a legal contract, but the fact remains that these babies exist and there is a lot of controversy about just such babies in fertility clinic freezers all over the country. is it moral to destroy them? I don't need to answer that question, but I think it is immoral to destroy them if someone wants them. they are children to this woman, who has no other option to have her own genetic children. I think the right thing to do is for this man to sign a contract with this woman absolving him of any responsibility, and allowing her access to the embryos. It may not be able to be forced legally, but it would be the right thing to do. you can say he has a right to decide if he wants to be a father or not, but I say he already made that decision when he allowed the embryos to be created, and he can't take it back now.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210503Fri, 01 Jun 2007 01:45:58 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210503Mommy in MaineThere was a case in California some years back when a young lady became pregnant with a child and decided to terminate the pregnancy without consulting the biological father or in this case her boyfriend. Well, when the young man learned of her decision to terminate without consulting him he formally took her to court and sued her. He won the decision and blocked the termination of his offspring. The court in the state of California didn't seem to have any problem with ordering this young lady to bring the fetus to full term and to deliver the child. Now, I don't remember if the story stated how far she was in her pregnancy but my guess would be between 4 to 8 weeks. Neither did it provide any other in depth personal information nor do I remember a follow up story. But I simply wanted to inform all, if you're interested, that yes a man can and has by court order stopped a women from terminating a pregnancy. Perhaps someone else might remember this occurrence. I am more than sure that the court docket has provided this case as a law school lesson. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210513Fri, 01 Jun 2007 02:12:36 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210513Susan, Boise, IdahoReading through all of these comments made me think. When they decided to create embryos they made a contract on what to do if they changed their minds. I personally believe that these embryos should not be destroyed, but I wasn't the one who signed the paper saying I would allow them to be destroyed. These two individuals had. Who knows, perhaps her husband would have never agreed to the procedure if he didn't have control over what happened to the embryos. Let's face it- this is a contract case. You can't go back a few years after you signed a contract to buy a house and say hey I changed my mind. I feel bad for everyone in the situation, but just like a woman has control over her body and her eggs a man does as well. They already decided the moral aspect of the situation and sometimes in life you can't change your mind.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210515Fri, 01 Jun 2007 02:24:01 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210515Nikie, Arlington, VAShe is being selfish and spiteful. What if the situation was reversed and she wanted to destroy the embryos but he wanted to keep them to be implanted in his future wife or a surrogate? People are notorious for mucking things up. The agreement was to destroy the embryos if they got a divorce. Being a parent and or having children should not be forced on anyone for any reason. 'ADOPTION' is an option. Why would you want a 'baby' at 46? She'll be 60 when it graduates high school. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210529Fri, 01 Jun 2007 02:52:07 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210529Melissa Burns, Lees Summit, MOI hope and pray that he will let his x-wife have their children, they are already babies, if he would just finish what he started he would be blessed when he looked into those babies eyes for the first time. Hopefully he will allow his children to be born. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210539Fri, 01 Jun 2007 03:19:51 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210539jane smith arizonaI can't believe this is a topic of the news. Absolutly not should she have so called "custody" of what wasn't souley hers to begin with.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210569Fri, 01 Jun 2007 04:10:42 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210569Roomeister, Salem, MAHere's anothter reason where signed contracts are not working. They signed a contract saying if they divorced the eggs would be destroyed. NOw with it up to the courts having to decide, they should also think how is this mother going to support this child? If she decides to have the child she sould sign a waver saying she will not go on welfare, but use her own money, work a real job. If the courts decide for her it will cost all of us too. She took this guy to the cleaners by getting the house. (whihc should have been sold and the money devided between the two of them)All I see is a shelfish woman trying to think she can screw the system. There are allot of women out there that should be outraged by this shelfish woman, also if the courts allow her to have this child is is reverse rape on the former husband. Remember it will cost all of us if she wins not just the ex-husband.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210582Fri, 01 Jun 2007 04:27:10 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210582jm, Salt Lake City, UtahI believe this case is like many involving the conception and birth of children. No one is thinking about the rights of children. It is about the desires of adults, which may or may not be in the best interest of the children involved. Even in cases where same sex partners use donors or surrogates, there are profound losses for children...of half of their genetic identify and/or the gestational parent they have attached to for 9 months. No one wants to think about the challenges or implications for children. Women have fought for years for our right to control our lives and bodies. Roe vs. Wade was about the right of women to not be forced to bear a child they did not want to bear, for whatever reason that might be. In terms of equal rights, how is it different to force a man to be a father when he clearly does not want to be one. In this case, he doesn't want to be for very legitimate reasons. How does that help a child to be born from a relationship where their parents can't stand each other and their father doesn't want to be a father? It isn't as simple as a matter of child support or the responsibility of raising a child. There are deeper identity and emotional issues involved for a child. Where are the advocates for children? Unfortunately medical technology has far surpassed medical ethics and many children are paying for that in one form or another. Judyhttp://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210609Fri, 01 Jun 2007 05:48:07 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210609Trying and not succeeding.. wish I had her money - TexasWhy doesn't she adopt if she wants kids so bad? I think they should be destroyed. At first I felt bad for her.. but yes.. she is being selfish. They signed a contract. And like some of you all said.. she could have paid for a donor and been prego by now if she had REALLY wanted to be pregnant! She needs to let go.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210617Fri, 01 Jun 2007 06:04:09 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210617Kathy, MII am a woman but I still side with the man on this one. He has rights as well and it would definatly not be a good way to bring a child into the world. I am sure this is difficult for the woman. They both agreed to destroy these incase of divorce. Then it was not so emotional and they were thinking clearly. At that time they were thinking about what was best for the child. Now it's about emotion. It's painful for her, I'm sure, but with the absense of emotion she knew it was the right thing to do. Stick with the contract.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210621Fri, 01 Jun 2007 06:13:51 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210621Esther Bergan, NYJohn chapter 11:35 Jesus Wept. And he knows the names of those unborn embryos being referred to as "property".http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210640Fri, 01 Jun 2007 08:34:09 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210640John Doe, Seattle, Wash.Didn't they create life? Isn't it her egg? If she can't have children the normal way, why can't he cut her some slack? She doesn't want anything from him. Give her her eggs.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210664Fri, 01 Jun 2007 11:08:41 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210664Porkaloi, Cape Town, South AfricaYes,Esther Bergan NY, our Lord most certainly are weeping at all the abomonations of our time! "Creating live" (IVF) is tampering with God's will for our lives. These BABIES - yes, they are human - are innocent parties and it would take Solomon's wisdom to resolve this! I think anonymous adoption of these three babies should be considered. THEY CANNOT BE KILLED BECAUSE THEY ARE INCONVENIENT AFTER THE DIVORSE. PPhttp://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210692Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:40:03 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210692areneyI think she should be able to have them. It is probably her only chance to have children. This guy is what.. 47-48 an old fart why not leave behind a kid or two when you leave the world. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210703Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:51:32 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210703T. Sprouse Germantown, MarylandShe needs to move on with her life. The eggs should be destoyed as per the contract. They got divorced. If she wants to have children that bad, either adopt or find someone else to donate his sperm. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210794Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:12:05 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210794Lee Ann, Sarasota, FLThose fertilized eggs are not hers to implant. They signed a contract, together, to have any items at that clinic destroyed in the event of a divorce. The ex-husband is within his right to refuse to have them implanted into his ex-wife. What's being overlooked is this is not her ONLY way to be a parent. She still has eggs, she can still do IVF and have a sperm donor, who would have no obligation to a child, create a child for her. But she doesn't want to do that, she wants to have her ex-husbands child/children. She could adopt. There are thousands of children waiting for homes or she could buy a baby via private adoption. I'm sorry for her loss, but those fertilized eggs don't belong to anyone but the clinic and they should follow through with the terms of the signed agreement and destroy them. The attorney for the ex-wife knows she doesn't have a snowballs chance and was incapable, along with the ex-wife, of trying to coherently defend the reasoning to continue to fight this in the courts. She has alternatives to become a parent. It's a matter of deciding which is more important, being pregnant or being a parent? That's the REAL question that should be asked. I hope the court upholds the terms of the contract, sides with the ex and forces the destruction of the property in question. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210850Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:49:52 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210850Lisa SmallI am a feminist and believe strongly that this case, like frozen-embryo cases before it, should be decided in favor of the person who does NOT want to become a parent. In this case, that's the man. Since the embryos are not actually in the woman's body at this point, she has no more rights than he does about what should happen to them. Even without bringing the contract into it, the rights of the person who does NOT want to parent ought prevail. And there IS a contract! It took centuries for women to win the right to sign contracts; letting her back out of this one because she MIGHT be infertile now makes no sense at all. (And, as someone pointed out above, since this has dragged on so long, she was probably a lot more fertile at the beginning of the divorce than she is now; why the tight focus on these embryos, if not to compel *this particular* man to be an *unwilling* father? There's a credibility problem here. And she and her lawyers know that it is impossible under any state's law to "absolve" him of his financial responsibility; that adds to the credibility problem. And he's right: nothing absolves anyone of their *moral* responsibility to their children. He's trying to do the right thing, and what she's trying to do is wrong: legally, morally, and financially.) http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#210937Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:52:04 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210937Gainor Hillegass, Tampa, FLNo matter how these conceptions took place, the embryos are now living individuals needing a place to finish growing. They are as we were in the beginning of our lives. Although couples and clinics try to impose regulations on the handling of these lives, they are separate and really do not belong to anyone. They belong to God and to themselves and are at the mercy of the people to whose care they are entrusted. Parents who cannot or desire not to rear their offspring must step aside and allow others to do so, rather than end their lives. The kids are already here. They need a home. I as a parent and grandparent know that none of us are perfect at raising children, but when we do our best, God will do the rest(through the people who come into their lives, lift them up, and give them a chance). There is a quotation from Kahlil Gibran that reads, "Our children do not belong to us, they are shot as arrows from our bows". If custody is not given to the mother of these children, then they must be raised by someone else - not killed.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#211136Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:10:01 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:211136JR, Sanford,,NCI am torn here. I can sympathize with the woman...but why would she want kids from her ex? They are both being spiteful. I don't think that the embryos should be destroyed though, donating would be better. Adoption is not always an option...Rules for adoption can be very difficult. Maybe she can trade him...the house for the embryos?!http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#211148Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:20:34 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:211148Larisa, Anaheim Hills, CAThe embryos should be destroyed. This woman is trying to hang on to a lost cause by having this man's child, even after a divorce. This is sad. Taking care of a child is not only deciding whether the child should be born, it also involves the moral issue of raising the child with two parents that love each other. What about the rights of the man? A woman has a choice if she were pregnant. A man should have the choice as well, it's only fair.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#211205Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:25:41 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:211205Echoe, Des Moines, IowaI find much of this interesting. There are some points necessary to know from a legal standpoint. While she is willing to allow the ex-husband the means of financial exoneration, the court may not. The other major thing is that she IS able to have other children. This is not the only means of having children: I'm ADOPTED. There are millions of children around the world who are orphaned or in foster care. If she has no further eggs, then these eggs are equally hers AND his from a legal standpoint, in fact, the courts may weigh that they are more his due to his sperm being a half of each embryo. If she has more eggs, I agree with one of the previous speakers. Go get a new sperm donor, this is so not worth the cost of an even more embittered relationship. There are a lot of psychological questions involved here too. I'm surprised both attorneys aren't asking for evals. She needs a full evaluation of why in particular she wants HIS sperm and no one else's (assuming she has eggs) and he needs an eval on why he doesn't want her to have them. Legally, those embryos are half HIS and half HERS. The "eggs" are no longer eggs, they are EMBRYOS. Last I looked it took two to tango and we are not yet forms of amoeba able to split and make little clones of ourselves. The consent form stated: upon divorce the embryos will be discarded. It also stated that up to and prior to implanting, either party can withdraw consent to the implant. While her attorney is creative in the stance that this also allows her the right to change her mind about discarding, this is not stated in the contract and is not implied in the contract. There is a lot to be thought through on this matter, and this is certainly one that raises some very serious ethical issues. If she wins, what is a new moral question then is whether or not any embryo is automatically fully owned by women and only women regardless of marital status. It would also seem to me that it would be a setback in an industry which could help infertile couples, because there would be a new fear by men of what would happen in any stage of fertility assistance should the man change his mind. No, these embryos are not solely hers, the key word being EMBRYOS, not eggs. If she can get her eggs back from the embryos, THAT would be a true miracle of science! Yeah, last I knew, there are a lot of children out there waiting to be adopted and cared for. This is not the only way for her to have children. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#211212Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:32:26 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:211212joan,MDThey had a contract.the woman is breaking it,but i think she should be allowed to have the eggs,because it is obvious the man is just being spiteful.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#211224Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:40:13 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:211224N Jean, KCIt's not an unborn embryo--it is simply an embryo. I will never understand why some people think a bunch of frozen cells is a baby. It isn't even a fetus yet--it has no heart. It can't live on its own! Is there no logic among some people??? This should merely be a contractual issue - she signed a contract. Done is done. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#211229Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:43:23 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:211229Wallberg, MI'm tired of people comparing this man position to making her get an abortion after she got pregnant. Please note she is NOT PREGNANT, they are DIVORCED! She wants to get pregnant with a man's sperm she will not let go of! It's obviously her way of holding on to him in some way and that is sick and no child should be intentionally born into that. They are not just "her eggs" they are THEIR embryos. If she wants "her eggs" there are 7 left she can get fertilized with a donor's sperm. She sounds like a sick woman and her lawyer is a disguisting person for being so greedy to pick up a case she knows will get her name around instead of telling her client that she should be seeking counceling. They made a promise when they got married to stay together forever, neither abided by it. They made a promise to destroy the embryos if the marriage didn't work out, she's not abiding by it. So far she's 2 for 2. And he's suppose to believe that kid will never be held over his head? He's probably a decent guy who knows that if he knows he has a child out there it will eat at him not to be a part of it's life. And I think that's what she's COUNTING on. The man wins this one HANDS DOWN. At least someone has their head on straight! (and that lawyer should be disbarred, there's already too many idiots out there looking for their 15 minutes)http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#211673Sat, 02 Jun 2007 16:33:02 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:211673Meisha MarieResponse from a female: I am a child from an absent father. I'll probably never know all the circumstance behind why I have "no father in the picture" & I can't be sure if this man thoughts are on the "same wave length" as my own - but for once i think I would have to agree with the man. . . . Here's why: 1) The contract stated if they divorced the embryos would be destroyed 2) This couple had the same priviledge (with regards to implantation of the eggs) and could change their minds at any time & and per their agreement the eggs were to have been destroyed. 3)I don't think that. . . . . . "It's a woman's prerogative to change her mind" applies to this situation. 4) For all the good that it does (the ability to implant embryos), it is for this reason sometimes I think it is wrong. If you are someone that has become pregnant in this manner, please don't think me ridiculous & un-feeling, as I am ecstatic for you! You derve all the blessings coming your way, with your "bundle of joy." But. . . . in this situation $$$$$ the monies spent & wasted on all this sensationalism, I would have rather seen donated to a non-profit fertility clinic (to assist a couple, that maybe doesn't have enough funds to support their dream of conceiving a child by this method) or in an adoption process to place one of the more unfortunate children "right here at home." 5)Lastly, and perhaps where my personal feelings come from. . . .Yes, the ex-wife did state that she would not hold her ex-husband financially responsible for a child born from these embryos. . . but should she have this child, a part of the man would mentally be "forever tied" to this child and probably worse of all for him. . . a part of this man would be "for ever tied" to this ex-wife. With the youth of today having so many identity problems, stemming from so many childred fathered from casual sex-"out of wedlock", rapes, and incest. . .divorces, separations and angry parents who put them in the middle or were just plain "absent," Why, when this man is following their written agreement, should this man be made to allow the use of these embyos to create a child who will grow up wondering (like me) who their father is & why he didn't want to be a part of their life. It is not a baby yet. . . . . Why can't this "divorced man" be given a chance to have a clean new start on life. If she truly, truly wants a child - take all the money (that she will onviously be paid) from all her "attention getting antics" and visit another fertility clinic and start her process to become pregnant! Leave the poor guy alone! http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#211760Sat, 02 Jun 2007 21:33:47 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:211760Sara Natali, Weslaco TXThe woman shouldn't be allowed to use the embryos. What if the man wants to share the joy of his first child with a woman that he really loves??? Its no fair for him and I know its not fair for the woman either but thats life and if He doesnt want a kid with his genes running around the world he has every right!!! http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#211814Sun, 03 Jun 2007 01:33:58 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:211814Denise, Louisville, KyI have read all of the comments made by people commenting about the contract. Well, lets see, contracts are broken every day. That contract means absolutely at this point. There was obviously a time when he was wanting children with this woman. What everyone needs to realize (He already has children that he helped make, now he just wants to keep them frozen HOW SELFISH of him.)She wants nothing from him & I think she should be able to have her children if she wants them. I can speak from experience by saying she would not take a penny from him. I have never taken child support from my ex-husband and I could have a lot of money right now. It's not worth it. Whats worth it, is when you look into your baby's face for the first time and feel more love than you have ever felt in your entire lifetime. You don't have to be married to have a baby. If thats all that she wants from him, he needs to let her have the baby or babies. She will love being a mother and she has gone through alot to get where she is now. She deserves to be able to have at least half of the embryos and him the other half. In the end he will be the murderer and she will be the mother. The babies are waiting to see the world through there eyes, no yours, not mine but their very own two eyes. Good Luck, Augustahttp://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#211826Sun, 03 Jun 2007 02:28:24 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:211826Rellea, CAThat's the problem in this country, u sign a divorce contract, you sign any contract and you still end up in court, trying to get someone to decide what it means when u sign a contract saying, in case of divorce discard eggs? ummmm, what did they mean when they signed that? stupid-shouldn't even be up for discussion, what a waste of time...but at the lawyers still have their jobs...:)http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#211843Sun, 03 Jun 2007 03:19:25 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:211843Nancy, Grand Rapids, MIWhy not take the unfertilized eggs and then she can go to a sperm bank for the fertilization to take place. The contract states that in a divorce they (embryos) will be destroyed. Sorry lady, you lose! Save the courts time and money and go a different route.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#211909Sun, 03 Jun 2007 08:16:48 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:211909Jennifer Fatzinger, Seattle WAAs a 36yr old female who is also going through almost the same experience, this is a very hard case. I personally understand the pain and emotional rollercoaster women go through to try and achieve pregnancy via IVF. I do believe the man has a moral responsibility that he should be held to when he agrees to create human life through assisted technology. It's not that I'm opposed to adoption, it's that the man has consented to give his sperm to fertilize her eggs to start a family. He knew what he was doing when he signed the contract. On the other hand, their contract specifically gave directions from the biological parents in the case of divorce. I think fertility contracts have become much tighter and clear because of cases like these, but they still have a long way to go. I REALLY FEEL for Augusta. If this was her only biological last resort than I would be more on her side. In this case she does have other choices to pick a sperm donor to fertilize her other remaining eggs. I know it is an expensive process, but there are organizations such as www.fertilehope.org that can help lower the costs for some women. I do think Randy was very CRUEL to change his mind at the last minute. For Augusta to be so excited about becomming a parent and then at the very last minute for him to change his mind is horrible and emotionally devestating. I understand he has a right not to be a parent, but honestly he should have thought of that before he went through the process with her. Fortunately for him, their contract sides in his favor. Hopefully with more cases out there like this, our courts will recognize the need to make specific laws as to how embryos are to be treated. I was fortunate enough to be able to preserve my fertility with my boyfriend at the time six years ago by creating frozen embryos before undergoing chemo and radiation treatments due to cervical cancer. We married a year later and were just waiting for the right time to start our family with the help of a gestational carrier. Five years later, we are going through a divorce & our cryopreserved embryos are one of the focal points of our trial this coming June 11, 2007. I am fighting for my embryos because this is my only chance to have a biological child. Our contract from the Colorade Center for Reproductive Medicine does not state what we wanted to do with our embryos should we divorce. At the time it only stated that we needed wills in place to protect the embryos in case of our death. A lot of wording has changed in contracts over the years. I am not fighting for an financial or parental support should any children result from my frozen embryos. I just want the chance to biologically be a single parent if I am fortunate enough to win my embryos in our upcoming trial. So Augusta & Randy I can see both sides of your story and understand your concerns. I hope Augusta is successfull in finding a great sperm donor to fertilize her other eggs so that she can fullfill her dream of becoming a parent.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#211961Sun, 03 Jun 2007 14:47:04 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:211961Michelle; Columbus, OHI agree with E. Suarez on this one. What if she decides that the financial burden is too great for raising a child? Will she then go back and file child support against him, despite the agreement? You know courts always rule in favor of "the best interests of the child" and if that child's best interest is to have paternal support, that's what it'll get. It is not fair to him to allow her that type of control. They should honor the contract and destroy the embryos. Who knows? Maybe he backed out of the IVF because the marriage was already rocky and he didn't want to bring a child into that uncertainty. She should use the remaining eggs she have, fertilized by a anonymous donor, if she just has to conceive. Not force a child on her Ex, hell, she could be trying to use that as a way to force him back into a relationship!http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#212107Sun, 03 Jun 2007 22:57:36 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:212107Jim Hemet, Ca.A parent can not give up the rights of a child, meaning if she changed her mind (again) her agreement to not hold him financial responsable would not be upheld by the courts. Also if in the future she needs government aid they would come looking for him for child support.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#212248Mon, 04 Jun 2007 01:57:01 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:212248Melissa, LaSalle IL.she should be able to keep her eggs that were not put with his spermyet to gry with someone elses sperm, but he should not be forced to bring a child in this world if he doesn't want too. She wants a child but he doesn't, at least not with her. The agreements were signed for a reason, I say let them stand.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#212251Mon, 04 Jun 2007 02:03:21 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:212251Melissa, LaSalle ILMy first comment was wrong I changed my mind. It is a baby already it should be allowed to be born.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#212301Mon, 04 Jun 2007 03:32:34 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:212301Carol Kennedy, Fort Wayne, InI will have to side with Augusta. If the Randy is worried he will have to pay child support or take part in any way in raising the child, they can have a binding agreement written. I doubt that the child in the future would try to find a man that wanted him/her killed. Sounds like they should have had marriage counseling before the decision to go through the whole procedure. Also, it sounds like he is just trying to be spiteful.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#212339Mon, 04 Jun 2007 04:11:21 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:212339C Hillman MichiganIs everyone missing the point here? These "embryos" are human life. They are living beings. What about "them". I say let them mature into the beautiful babies they were destined to become, and then let the father look into their innocent precious faces and say, "I have a legal binding contract to destroy you", as the Mother looks on saying, "I fought every fight imaginable to save your life". This fight should have nothing to do with a piece of paper that gives anyone the right to "detroy" a human life, at any cost. Jack Kevorkian just finished a prison term for "destroying" human lives, so I feel the father in this case should too. I hope the court does the right thing and does not hand a death sentence to the precious soon to be children.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#212764Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:50:10 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:212764Andrea, Chicago, ILThere is absolutely no way she should get the embryo's. This is like asking her ex-spouse to impregnate her if she had the capability to conceive naturally. The embryo belongs to both of them and they should only have a child out of wedlock if they BOTH agree too. If the situation were reversed, this man would have no right to those embryo's either. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#212824Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:51:26 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:212824Aimee Dulles VAThis woman is self-centered, selfish and desperate. She needs to move on. The man doesn't want her or the children. Destroy the embryos.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#212829Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:54:13 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:212829ShannonShe should not be able to implant the embryos! She keeps saying that she has a right to her eggs but if they are embryos they are no longer "her" eggs they are "their" embryos. The woman said that she would release her ex-husband of any financial obligations but I worry that if she has a baby using one of these embryos and she later finds out what a financial strain a child or children can be she will petition the court for child support and get it from a man who didn't want the child(ren) because of marital problems and a subsequent divorce. It won't matter that he signed a release. Years ago there was a case where a woman received in-vitro using sperm from a sperm bank. Somehow she found out the identity of the donor, sued him for child support and won. I believe she could do the same thing. If she wants a child so badly she should probably go to a sperm bank herself or wait until she is in another relationship with a person who wants to have children with her. I think that Randy should be commended for not allowing children to be borne into a doomed marriage.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#213023Mon, 04 Jun 2007 20:58:44 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:213023Mobis Nwaokomah, PennsylvaniaIt is so unfortunate that this woman in question so seeks to have kids by all means, but, this issue is a joint affair. It was only through the help of the man that her eggs were able to be fertilized...she couldn't have been able to impregnant herself if she had wanted to. The three embryos are not her sole property. The man has a choice to make and it appears his choice is equally consistent with the terms of the contract they signed way back. The solution is simple: the marriage is over, therefore the embryos should be discarded. She can make other ones with her present husband, but it would be unjust to tell the man not to worry about the finances and other obligations! He doesn't want to have any further relationship with his ex and succumbing to the pressure of having the kids will hold him accountable, morally, ethically and his conscience will be at war.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#213337Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:16:05 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:213337Wendy Davis, Valdosta, GAI tend to agree with the man on this issue. They both agreed to discard if there was a divorce. How will this be fair to a child. I think he has every right to have a say so in this matter. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#213489Tue, 05 Jun 2007 03:30:15 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:213489L. GordyI feel for this woman - she is obviously desperate to have a child, and maybe unfortunately, his child. But no one should be allowed to bring your child into this world against your will - unless it was conceived through natural means and you took the risk of having sex unprotected. Honestly, I don't know why she would want to have his child knowing he is so dead-set against it. It is selfish. I mean how is that something you can ever explain to your child, "Sweetie, your Daddy didn't want you so much that he took me to court several times over, so that's why he doesn't call on your birthday. Now blow out your birthday candles." I am a 38-year old woman who doesn't have any children yet, so I understand that "time's running out" feeling. But men have reproductive rights too. http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#214712Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:58:45 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:214712Katie: San Diego, CAThis is so absolutely absurd. ABSURD. This woman can't even hold a marriage together...but wants to have her ex's kid ?? WHA?!! Get a dog, lady. You're God-playin' days are over.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#214815Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:56:19 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:214815CATAEVERYBODY IS SAYING THAT THE POOR MAN HAS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE IF HE WANTS TO BE A "FATHER", HE ALREADY DECIDED WHEN HE GAVE HIS SPERM TO CREATE A NEW LIFE, HE IS ALREADY A "FATHER". NOW, DONATING A SPERM DOES NOT MAKE ANYONE A FATHER, SO mR rOMAN SHOULD NOT BE WORRIED ABOUT BRINGING A CHILD INTO THIS WORLD(HE ALREADY DID). IS HE WORRIED ABOUT HIS CONSCIENCE? MORAL VALUES? BELIEFS? THEN OFFER YOUR BABIES FOR ADOPTION OR LET YOUR EX-WIFE BE A MOTHER, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE A FATHER. HOPEFULLY THE COURT SYSTEM WILL DECIDE THE RIGHT THING.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#214831Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:11:56 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:214831CATAIS I FAIR FOR THE BABIES TO BE KILLED WENDY? i AGREE THEY WOULD NOT BE COMING TO THIS WORLD IN THE BEST CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT CILDREN OF DIVORCED PARENTS LIVE THE SAME DILEMMA. LET US GIVE THEM THE CHANCE TO LIVE WITH ADOPTIVE PARENTS OR WITH THEIR OWN MOTHER.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#214858Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:28:41 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:214858thopWell they both took a risk here. The only problem is that she gets a limited number of eggs and he has millions of sperm. However I see his point as well, that if there is a child out there that biologically belongs to him there is a moral issue. Unfortunately they chose to gamble and the eggs should be terminated if no conclusion is to be reached. She can adopt if that is what she wants. I have given birth to 2 children and have adopted one in infancy and I see absolutely no difference between the them at all. This is a power struggle between a pair of people who want want want. They should decide why they want to hurt one another so badly. If they are willing to give this much energy up to fight about it, then there are genuine feelings there and a consolodation could be met.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#215083Wed, 06 Jun 2007 00:31:19 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:215083AnonymousSorry people, but you need to choose one or the other. These are NOT eggs anymore, these are fertilized embreyos. Which means if she has property of her eggs that one thing, but she should NOT have a right to the embreyos. Obvously, the husband forsaw something in her that made him want to change his mind about having children with her. They could not work things out in counseling, so they ultimately divorced. 4 years later the courts should not force this man to become a father against his will. In the 4 years this has been going on, this woman could have met someone else, remarried and tried again to have children, by either more IVF treatments or by adoption. She has done neither because she is too busy hanging on to the past. It should not be an issue that these treatments are painful and involved. She knew what she was getting into just because they are involved and painful does not mean the courts should force this man to be a dad when he does not want to be. If she wants children that badly she should be willing to do the treatment again with someone else who WANTS children with her. Let this man and the embreyos go and get on with your life. You are wasting precious years trying to force someone to do something they do not wish to do. The sooner you get on with your life, the sooner you can continue to seek another marriage and child. What man would want to attempt a relationship with you knowing you are trying to force another man into unwanted fatherhood? Please let the man go. Dont have his unwanted children grow up so you can explain why they are fatherless, because as selfish as you sound, I sure you won't truthfully tell the child they are fatherless because of your selfishness.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#215326Wed, 06 Jun 2007 03:41:48 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:215326P. JasperObviously none of these folks saying "destroy" the embryos have any idea what infertility is like and exactly how precious these potential lives are. Nor are they aware that these embryos might not even survive the thawing process. Then they have to implant. Three embryos -- and eggs from a woman her age when she did IVF? There is not a big chance any of the embryos will even implant. Do you people have any idea what a woman has to go through in IVF? The hundreds of shots, the pain? The misery? Obviously not. Her husband was extremely selfish for not allowing the transfer (changing his mind shortly beforehand) to begin with, after they went through all the trouble and expense. Of course, she was stupid for not having the embryos transferred right away once she was given custody earlier on. Perhaps because of that she deserves to be where she is now with this situation. I would have had them transferred for possible implantation immediately.http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx#215395Wed, 06 Jun 2007 04:50:06 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:215395Shelly, Mukilteo, WAShe should be able to use the embryo's. He does not have to become a "father" just because he has donated some genetic material that he originally agreed to donate. She has released him from all parental responsbilities, financial and otherwise -- He would strictly be a donor. Men donate at sperm banks all the time, not to be father's, but to provide genetic material for others to be parents. She is too old to have her eggs fertilized now, by a sperm donor, or in any other way most likely. And here she desparately wants to be a mother and has the fertilized eggs of her own there to use. I think the guy needs to get over himself and what he calls his moral objections. He is not going to have any relationship with this woman in the future, so just consider himself a donor and let her have the child she desperately wants -- and can absolutely raise without the genetic donor.