What a selfish pig Mr Johnston is. I hope he remembers the heartache he has caused Ms Evans the next time he "does the deed".

I'm sorry for her, but she and the guy have been split up for five years! You can't force a man to become a parent if he doesn't want to and you're no longer together.

I blame the science. Too much tinkering with nature.

We've been tinkering with nature for centuries (e.g. Jennings' cowpox/smallpox vaccination). It's just that our brains are getting ahead of our morality-and it can't be helped. Who is right and wrong in the above sad tale depends on your own frame of mind. However, one thing is certain; there is bound to be more difficult ethical and moral decisions we'll all have to make as science explodes.
Can philosophy, ethics and religion keep up?

If Johnston had no intention of seeing her through the recovery from cancer, he never should have agreed to be the sperm donor. Donating the eggs, was the same as agreeing to be the father: every time a couple have sex, they are in a way, agreeing to be parents.
She could have used a sperm donor from a bank.
Hind sight does nothing to ease her anguish now

It should be legally binding for the man because he has fertilised the eggs, so he has conceived the babies. They are alive. You do not change your mind after you've done it. It is just as if the pregnancy takes 5 years. You want to leave the woman - ok, but let her have the baby. Mad selfish world! Poor Natallie has gone through so much and trusted the man. She could have done it with someone else but poor soul, she managed to fall in love with that meanie who prefers his babies destroyed than let a woman he once assured of love to have them.

why was the case in the european court of human rights? why not family court?

please don't tell me- it's because the egg is just an egg and not her child?

Sheer madness. She should have had access to those eggs. Afterall, they were 50% hers. At the same time, she could have signed a legal statement forsaking all demands for child support. She could have the children; he could go on his merry way. What a sad mess.

One of the most basic drives for any organism is to procreate. While humans have expanded to include cultural and adopted procreation, the desire to pass yourself on via your genes is overwhelming and part of being human.

Reading this reminded me of Douglas Hofstadter's observations on self, which he sees as a pattern. Our genes are part of that pattern, and we live on somewhat through them. Since so much of personality and behavior is so strongly connected with genetics, it's heartbreaking to be told you will not be allowed to pass on that pattern. That particular aspect of you will end with you.

The law and Mr. Johnston got it wrong this time. This level of control is every bit as wrong as forcing an abortion against someone's will.

I think this is one of the saddest tales I have heard for a long time.

This women has not only had to endure the ardours of cervical cancer, she now has to face her own infertility, knowing that there were embryos in existence at one stage. This is a tragedy.

Mr Johnston made an agreement with her to conceive a child, went through all that is required of fertility treatment and now wants to reneague on that agreement. Shame on you Mr J, I hope you can live with yourself, condemning a woman you once loved to a life without her own biological child. I find it very hard to understand how anyone could do that.

There should be a law that if a man donates sperm to a woman who will never be able to reproduce again he can not stop her from creating the baby later. Mr. Johnson is morally wrong, selfish and evil.

Following the events: Ms. Evans had the pre-cancer treatment and had her ovaries removed. But she had the foresight to preserve the fertilized eggs. It was clear at the time IVF procedure that at later date she wishes to be a mother. Ms. Evans intentions were crystal clear. Now the question, whose sperms were used to fertilize her eggs, is immaterial. Why? Because the Male (Mr. Johnston in this case) who consented at that time to donate the sperms knew Ms. Evans intentions clearly, that she wants to get pregnant at later date.
Present Scenario:
1. Mr. Johnston at the time of donating sperms must have thought of his decision, thinking that the relationship may or may not continue in future.
2. Mr. Johnston, who happens to be sperm donor, has no rights or says in the process of embryo plantation for Ms. Evans. Ms. Evans should be allowed to get pregnant as she pleases.
>>The Key is Ms. Evans intentions were clear and known to all the parties all the time.<<

I agree that this is a sad tale but by the same token, there is no perfectly just result. Allowing her to have the embryos would have forced fatherhood on a man who did not want it with her. Forbidding her to have the embryos ends her chance for reproduction. Neither solution is perfect.

In response to several posters however, I don't feel that the IVF process is analogous to a long gestational period. I presume these embryos were packed away before the treatment for her cancer. She could well have died and they might then have never been used. In other words, there was no certainty at the outset that the embryos would be gestated at all.

In response to Alex from TX, you've made a generally true statement. However, there are people who intentionally choose to live child-free lives. I for one am such a person. I've never for a second regretted my decision despite the fact my peculiar set of genes is not destined to be passed on. Personally, I think that a large portion of pregnancies are simply accidental rather than a conscious or subconscious attempt to "pass on the genes". People have sex because it feels good and although this very adaptive from an evolutionary standpoint (increases the opportunity for "accidents"), I tend to think a large number of people end up rationalizing their status as parents by any number of means, including the "sowing the seed" notion.

In the end, I think the best of two lousy options was reached. Parentage should be an act of consensus -- something clearly lacking between the two parties in this case. Allowing Ms. Evans to use the embryos had the potential to create even more suffering for a larger set of people. As it is, she will grieve for a time and move on.

Howard Johnston, already gave consent.

In a legal sense, if he wanted conditions on the babies, he should have made them clear.

Making children is a contract. You cannot change your mind.

#12 Arun, sorry I have to disagree with you and agree some with #2. Mr Johnnston as the sperm donor (his sperm) has every right to say how that sperm will be used and then change his mind at a later date if he so wishes. I feel very sorry for the lass in this story, wanting so much to be a Mum and having that denied her, but this is not a one sided thing. Two people are involved and he has as much say in this as she has. I'm not a callous man by nature and I'm sorry if what I wrote sounds callous, it's not meant to be. Despite what anyone thinks of Mr Johnstone the man has rights too.

#14 Minkyer, you said "Making children is a contract. You cannot change your mind". Sorry but in this case they can change their minds. It's not natural conception here in which case I would agree with you.

Why should this man have to end up paying for a child/children that he does not want? The whole thing is a joke. If she wants kids so badly, then she should adopt. I wonder if she has been geting legal aid for this nonsense and, if so, how much it cost the taxpayers?

the key word in this artificial situation is consent.

A sad story but probably the best result legally as it makes consent the crux of the issue. However, I do have some sympathy with the view that as he gave his sperm in the first place, that was tantamount to consent.

The correct result. This woman had no concern whatsoever for the child. Her only concern was herself. How often do we see that?
The child needs a father, and there is no doubt this woman would have demanded a man she did not want should pay for her selfishness. The man was correct to refuse.

However, tinkering with nature produces such events. This type of procedure should not be available on demand.

The disease this woman has suffered has a terrible death rate. Her chances of surviving remain small. What happens if she dies (a terrible death) leaving a toddler behind?
Selfish woman, wasting courts time!

Without a man's consent, a woman cannot conceive (unless midi-chlorians exist!). Even though her eggs had been fertilised, they were in deep freeze. They may not have been viable by now anyway.

Yes, it's a shame for the woman concerned, but her ex-partner had rights too, no matter what you may personally think of him. He did not want to be a parent with a woman he was no longer involved with. If the courts had gone against him, he could have tied them up for years with appeals and counter-appeals. The eggs would have been destroyed before resolution,

Again, sorry for the woman, but the law was right in this instance.

The law

This is a sad tale from start to finish and my sympathies goes out to her and him.

I fully support her want to have her own genetic child and I am saddended that she contracted cancer that ended her child making abilities and she has been refused the use of previously fertilized eggs.

However, I have to add that in thsi case, the law made a very diffidult but correct decision. Taken from a personal point of view, I would not want to know that there was a woman having a child of mine even though our relationship broke down years before. That would be exceptionally unfair to the man as he would be forced into taking some responsibility of a child he did not want with a woman he no longer has a stable relationship with. It's all about choices and he chose not to allow the above to happen and it is to the benefit of both him, her and the never existed child.

I understand that her ex-partner has rights as well, but didn't he think before consenting in the first place? nothing lasts forever, what if they had split up after she had become pregnant or had a child? Would he not want anything to do with them then?
If she said that she would ask for no support or anything more to do with him why would that not change his mind?

Does his determination in making sure that she can't have a biological child of her own mean that he is not going to want children in the future?
How is he going to feel looking at a child that he has fathered and feeling that love and bond, knowing that he has deprived Natallie of ever feeling that.

I Have had problems with pregnancy and I can understand up to a point what she is going through. I had no problems getting pregnant but miscarried early, many times. She must be totally devistated at the news and my heart goes out to her. Sometimes a woman has no choice in chosing another way, I had people offering to be a surogate for me but even that would have meant it would not feel like my child and I was worried that I would not be able to give that child all the love that he/she deserved. I could not explain it if I tried the need to have my own child that totally took over my life and my feelings, I could not look at a pregnant woman or baby without feeling pain. It made me feel like less of a woman.

Mr. Johnston has rights too and the law has upheld those rights. It seems that most of Natalie Evans argument is based on emotion and some of the contributors echo that. He has the right not to be the father of her children and, as the law stands, he has exercised those rights. That is what equality in law and in an agreement means. It would indeed be folly to erode the rights on either gender based on this.

The key thing here is that nobody has the right to have children, but everybody has the right to choose NOT to have children.

Mr Johnson has the right to refuse consent. The issue is should he excercise it in the circumstances.

I am sure some private arrangement could have been made concerning future liabilities if the man chose to excercise a little compassion.

Cannot he not just delight in giving life and happiness.

I'm surprised at the number of posts condemning the man here. He has every right to decide what should happen to his sperm, and he has not acted or spoken maliciously, but with compassion for someone who he no longer loves and who no longer loves him. It would be a gross infringement of his rights if his sperm were to be hijacked by the courts to create his child against his wishes.

It's impossible not to feel sorry for the woman in this case, but her sad predicament is the result of her disease, not her ex. It is indeed a cruel blow to discover that you will never have children of your own. I hope she finds happiness.

As usual, the greetin', wailin' and gnashin' of teeth when a man has rights. The embyos are joint products and are not wholly the property of either. It would be wrong for either party to force the other to be a parent (if the circumstances were reversed because of sterility in him would the posters who condemn him be happy for her, or another woman, to implanted? I think not.)
I feel sorry that she cannot have her own children but she be fulfilled in other ways which hopefully will not result in her bitterness. The law was right in this instance.

#5 what a ridiculous comment "If Johnston had no intention of seeing her through the recovery from cancer, he never should have agreed to be the sperm donor". Do we know why they broke up? No we do not, are you seriously saying that if a man agrees to be a parent with a woman and then they fall out of love and break up that he should just sit back and watch her have HIS children? Don't be so daft, the woman in question has NO RIGHT to demand that her EX partner agrees to be a father. I certainly would not want to be a father to any of my ex's. This case has been a farce from beginning to end. There are plenty of children that need to be adopted in this country.

#22 Dave from Barra
I watched the lady on TV and you would have to be inhuman not to feel for her, but i am no expert and i think your post gets as close as possible to a rational,reasoned comment.

In her defence, she wants kids she cannot have. In his defence, he would not get to father his own kids.

What happens in 16 years when the kids want to come find their dad? What happens to his life then? What if he agrees to let her have the kids but she denies him access to see them? what if, what if, what if?

The solution is for her to adopt!

So now that the bickering is over, the embryos are just to be 'destroyed'. What pitiful respect for human life.

Typical reaction from most of the women on this thread. " The mans to blame "

Listen girls, the fact is the guy was quite right to refuse to allow the use of his sperm/eggs whatever you want to call it.

If he had allowed them to be used HE would have been responsible/liable for the upbringing of any children that were born from these eggs.

If you want to blame anyone, blame the goverment, they confirmed that the man would have been liable finaincialy and refused to change the law.
That is why BOTH partners have to agree to use the eggs.

Having said all that, yes, I have sympathy for her pain but at least she could still adopt and there are other alternatives for her to consider.

Ms Evans had many options due to science. She could have

a) Died from the cancer
b) Gotten pregnant, Gave Birth and then died from the cancer
c) Had her ovaries removed
d) Had IVF treatment and stored embyos and then had her ovaries removed.

Only science has permitted the latter two options in the last 50 years for option c and last twenty years for option d and Ms Evans fails to realise how lucky she is that she did not just have the choice between option a and option b.

Ms Evans took full advantage of science to choose option D where a number of eggs were removed and with her partners consent fertillised before being put into storage for possible later use (and this is the important bit)

with her partners consent at that time.

This would have been explained to her before the procedure was carried out.

A fertilised egg is 50% DNA from father and 50% DNA from mother and therefore both parties have to agree that they could be used. If either says no then that is that, otherwise it would be tantamount to rape.

The European and other courts have correctly upheld the equal status of the father in this case as to do otherwise would open the way for multiple claims of sexual discrimination.

With regards to any child, the uk system does not recognise between a consented baby and a non-consented one and the father (as he is known) would have had his life made a misery by the CSA or its replacement organisation as it does not recognise (and neither do the courts) private agreements as suggested above.

If Ms Evans wants a baby there is nothing stopping her obtaining fertilised eggs from another source and them being implanted into her.

While everyone can sympathise with Ms Evans, equal sympathy should be shown to the father as he has had to put up with a multi year nightmare as well.

This situation tugs at your heart strings. Being the mother of two sons I know how I would have felt if I had been denied that right. I haven't heard anywhere what Mr Johnson's specific reasons are for making such a decision. We all know they are not in a relationship anymore, so what many of us aren't in realtionships with our childrens fathers or mothers. As he said she had been Miss Right for him at one stage... that happens but he made a decision to contribute his sperm to fertilize those eggs..What was he thinking. The reasons was because they had found cancerous cells. So obviously it was going to be for future use. At that time someone should clearly identify that if something goes wrong with your relationship... this is the outcome.. So if he had said No to her having the eggs if they weren't together she would have had another option at that point. Totally unfair to backtrack knowing she has no other options for having her own child. The financial aspect is simply a piece of paper I don't think that is even an issue here although some others do. Iam sure she would willingly sign off on any support or future claims. It is truly sad and think the changes need to be made in the legal paperwork at the start to avoid this. Then she potentially could have had an opportunity for another donor. And Mr Wrong would have been off the hook in the begining... and shown his true colours then..rather than her dealing with her illness and his selfishness for 5 years...

#25

The best contribution made so far on this thread!

It's hard as a parent (mother) not to get emotionally involoved in this case, but in response to some of the comments, the right not to be a father has been exercised, just as if a woman had not wished to continue with a pregnancy, there would be little the father could do about it, but in connection with withdrawing his consent in regards to how his sperm is used, when in the proceedings does it become too late to change his mind, and how does this work in the cases of sperm banks when it has already been used? Another issue is that these embryos are made, it's not a case of sperm and egg, it's now a potential human being, the fact that it has been proven not to be owned by either parent as none can decide its future, who it standing up for its rights.

#22 : I agree with your thoughts.

Many people on here are taking a very simplistic view of life and relationships. They are also judging the personal character and motives of the two people involved.

Why can't we just read the story and feel some degree of sympathy and compassion for all of the people involved in it?

Reading through the comments above I get left with the feeling that many of you have never actually been in a relationship. Well - INCOMING NEWSFLASH - they are never black and white and neither is this case.

Howard Johnson is right. These things should only be carried through if both parties agree.
I'm sure that Mr. Johnson didn't set out to cause this scenario, and of course I have a lot sympathy for the lady,but he has a choice as well.
I mean, because he chose with her to create the embryos pre the lady's cancer treatment, DOES NOT mean that he has surrendered all rights in this matter. Why should her wishes be weighted more strongly than his rights?
I agree it's a difficult, sad case, but ALL the courts have got it right.

No comments about the rights of the embryos...what time is it in Washington?

What are you women all about? I can't abide this 'blame the man' mentality.

Mr J has every right to decide when - and if - he becomes a parent. The law is absolutely right to insist on consent from both. She knew this when she stored the embryos.

I feel sorry for the woman, but if she wants to be a mother so much, there are tens of thousands of unwanted and parentless children in the world. The desire for a mini-me is something quite different.

The man has 50% control over the Eggs. As he says what if HE wanted them to give to his NEW Girlfriend to use. Do you think Natalie would consent? No way. 50% of those eggs are his no matter how much women think the eggs are hers. Survival of the fittest is the #1 law of nature and shes UNFIT to have children naturally. She can boo hoo her way to the adoption agency. Her genes are not worth passing on if her child will be genetically vulnerable to the same cancer she has. We are not to judge any of this. What if Natalie was a crack addicted criminal, would she still have the RIGHT to use those eggs? Or would we judge her unfit. The answer is not to judge at all - no consent - NO DEAL.

#11 I think calling him evil is just a bit OTT.

We all have choices, we all make decisions and it is up to all parties involved to make the right one for them. Mr Johnston made the right one for him, and I do feel sorry for the lady but there are thousands of women out there who need assistance but for one reason or another are not entitled to it.

I just ask myself would it not have made more sense all round to freeze the eggs for them to be fertilised at a later stage. This would have provided her with more options i.e. sperm donation, we all know how quickly relationships fizzle out in today’s society. I hope that she can make piece and move on with her life there are so many wonderful children out there who require love and affection maybe this is the only option open to her at this time but its certainly one to think about.

Cancer, the loss of a partner and now the loss of a what could have been her baby. No wonder the woman is distraught.

Re# 31 'are you seriously saying that if a man agrees to be a parent with a woman and then they fall out of love and break up that he should just sit back and watch her have HIS children?'
Hundreds of thousands of men are in this situation where an ex partner raises HIS children.

I think a lot of the articles on this haven't said enough of the true story - fact of the matter is that this couple sat down, discussed, made an informed decision to freeze embryos and then went about the process - which is not an easy thing in itself.

If she hadn't been unfortunate enough to have had cancer the chances are that they would have been parents to a child or children already.

I do feel very sorry for this woman because, contrary to what #25 says, being a mother is the most rewarding, special job on the planet.

I feel nothing for the bloke - he can go on and father as many children as he wishes in the future. I don't know how he sleeps at night.

Agreed. In this case the 'deal' was to create children together, and Mr Johnston has not stuck to it. Whether to 'sit back and watch' as #31 suggested or to have some involvement financial or otherwise was his choice to make - but not to destroy the lives that have already been created.

Poor woman, I feel sorry for her.

However, the law was right in this case. Having children is not a "right". It's a privelige and not everyone is granted that - sometimes it's the way the dice falls and it's not always fair. :-( As has been said before, if this woman wants to become a mother, she has options. The man (personal opinion of him aside) wasn't being given any. And what if she HAD been granted permission? What about the poor kid?

#51 Come off it, no lives had already been created. And why should his choice be restricted to either sitting back and watching or having some involvement? The woman had the choice to use the eggs or not - this is implicit in the whole case - but you rightly point out that the man would have been denied that choice for his sperm. It's a 50:50 thing.

Being a parent is an important decision -for both mother and father. It has to embace the spirit of equality, after all, that's what women have fought for.

If the eggs had already been implanted when the couple broke up, would the law have ordered an abortion?

perhaps when the option of a natural (if you can call ivf natural) birth was ruled out seeking another course of action to have a child might have been a sounder idea than chasing ones tail through the courts. (eg adoption)

its is hardly a surprise the court found against her. as all the lower courts had found the same on several occasions.

and 51 no life's where created and therefore none lost.

it is essentially a case based on a contract they both signed, it had get out clauses and one party exercised there right to do so. end off

55 if the eggs had been implanted then (my understanding of the reading of the case) they would have been allowed to come to term naturally (if one can call any part of the process natural)

they where not
.

I agree with 17 Guga,
Another example of abuse of the Legal Aid System, now that she has lost her case, will she have to pay the Court costs, I doubt it.
This case should never have reached the European Courts. The genuine people with HRA cases can't afford to go there so why should the state finance them.
I assume that she wanted the Father to support the child even though they were separated, no wonder the morals of this country are on the scrap heap.

At least there are no posts about Celtic & Rangers - makes a bloody change in this paper

#61 Murdo - but how long will it take for a NAT to state that it would all be so different if Scotland was independent!

I'm a man, and I'd like to say that in this case I think the law was wrong.
There have been posts saying that the man had the right to interfere on the grounds that he didnt want to be a father. I dont get that; he wasnt going to be involved with the raising of the child, not financially, and not in any other way, so he wasnt going to be a father anyway.
Alos, the judges may have passed down a correct literal interpretation of current laws but they completely missed the point that the their job is to ensure that laws work for human beings, not against them. In my view the state should support the desire of women to have children.
I bet that the man in question would be the one crying, if he'd been the one to get cancer of the testicles and those embryos were *his* only chance to have children.

One difficulty is that nothing Ms Evans promised could prevent any child growing from the embryos from claiming rights from Mr. Johnstone in their own right. Mrs. Evans isn't able to make a promise that there would be no comeback on the father.

So it is entirely right that the father should have an equal say in the outcome. This is one of those terribly sad happenstances, but the father's rights are just as important as the mother's, no more, no less.

#64. I agree entirely, and I'm glad someone else has said it, it's all very well Ms Evans saying she doesn't expect Mr Johnston to be a father to the children, but wouldn't the children would expect it?
At some point in the future the children would come looking for him, or if something happened to Ms Evans surely he'd become responsible for the children? This is too much to put on a man because of his actions with a woman he loved 5 years ago. Things change.

This does also serve as a precautionary tale about staying friends with your exes though. Maybe if these 2 were still pals they'd have come to a different agreement. ..

I applaud the court on their decision. Although one can't help feeling sorry for her it was the right decision. The reprecussions from this would have been huge: a ruling in favour of Miss Evans would have basically stripped a man of his right to refuse parenthood. Besides, had this been a ruling in her favour I can't help but think the next battle would be to get child support payments from him. Well done Strasbourg, you don't often get it right but you have this time.

this case has thrown up some interesting points, it's a small battle in the continuing war between the sexes alright.

it doesn't surprise me that all but one of the pro-woman posters are women, nor that they come across as a little bit misandristic.

No one has mentioned the fact that the woman in this case (or her laywers) actually used sex discrimination as one line of attack. The logic being that it is sexist to allow the man alone to make the decision about the child.

They should have had the case kicked out straight away for that line - clearly BS as a second's reflection is all it takes to realise that it's the other way around, and it's the woman who wants to have the sole right to make this decision.

Q: What is the process for IVF from frozen embryos?
A: Embryos are frozen in liquid nitrogen. They can be stored for up to five years.

I copied the above from first posting.
________ ________
If the Embryos can be stored for five years then what guarantees are there that these Embryos are 100% healthy we are not talking about a loaf of bread with an expiration date we are talking about a life. It is very close to the expiration date for these Embryos and I would be more concerned about the health of these. The eggs were fertilized so both parents have rights. It is a sad story but Mr Johnston has his rights also in this outcome.

I feel sad for Ms Evans and my heart goes out to her. I wish you all the best Ms Evans

if she got pregant as a teenager she would not be in this unfortunate position - and she could have got lots of benefits and a free council house. hind sight is a wonderful thing

JennyM # 6 are you on drugs? "prefers his babies destroyed" ..... for the avoidance of doubt they are not babies they are merely cells with no legal rights. the jurisprudence of the european court has been right on in this case - no doubt about that.

should have gone to specsavers # 63 you really do not understand the concept of consent do you?

#67
I whole heartedly agree with you.
I think thats appauling, although inevitable that these scum bag lawyers would bring up the old sex discrimination case.

No one has the right to be a mother or a father.

All we have are opportunities and circumstances.

Not everyone has the opportunity and those that do have the opportunity have to live with the circumstances which will have consequences.

The further we move from natural processes and a sound moral framework the more complex and painful the consequences become.

I do not agree with #1 - she is selfish when it comes down to it - if the guy does not want to be a father to her children then that is his right. There are enough one parent families and extended families out there without another one adding to the burden.
She can adopt if she really wants a baby.
Don't get me wrong I do feel sorry for her but such is life.

... and while you all bicker about legal rights, the man with the Cheshire cat smirk on his face has condemed to death the kids who are yet in suspended animation, awaiting a last-minute reprieve with bated breath...

"her rights to have a child."

I didn't realise it was now a RIGHT! Not everyone can have kids, just like not everyone can live to 100, or enjoy perfect health.

Yes Tanja and 12,000 women a year in Scotland abort their kids up to and including 24 weeks old and not all for medical reasons. You are a hypocrit.

BTW, the youngest ever premature child is still alive, born at 22 weeks and survived.

Get real.

#75
Go and burn your bra elsewhere love.

I agree with Scullion, et al. We might have made leaps and bounds in technology. Maybe should leave nature alone. Seems like morality, ethics and legality have not caught up with the technical advances.

Who is the selfish one here? Instinct tells me the male but cool reflection tells me that none of us can tell. We are not party to the intricate agreements between them when all this was decided.

I might say however in general in life, if you say that you are going to do something and then renegn on it, you might lose something on it, maybe even just credability.

A very sad case and everyone a loser.

I am a far cry from an IVF expert, but couldn't Ms Evans have frozen just her unfertilized eggs for future use, rather than committing to pickng the father right then? Yes, I know they were in a relationship, but I'm a bit cynical about these things lasting forever, and I would have hedged my bets and kept 100% ownership by freezing just the eggs.

what is the point of the law in this case, it is a moral issue and morals cannot be codified into law. the law and morals are incommensurable rhetorics.

could not the parties have agreed on all liabilities?
Could not science have erased mr johnstone's memories of miss evans? Anyone seen "the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind"?

And yes, what of the rights of the frozen kiddies? This poor woman should morally have been given the chance to concieve, she wanted life to be made, the other side was pro death. Legal rights in a moral situation should not exist, but hey, that's a matter of opinion.

pretty shrewd comment jennie but that kind of thinking is a trifle unromantic, is st paul still the state capital of minnesota?

I am no expert, but I am pretty sure that an egg frozen after fertilisation and a few or a few dozen cell divisions is not an embryo. It might be a zygote or a something-o-blast but whatever it is called it is not remotely to be regarded as a sacrosant human life.

Most of these and 1 in 4 of fully implanted lumps of gristle are spontaneously aborted. Only when cell differentiation begins could you argue that a potential new life was underway. Nature's process is wasteful and heedless of our sentimentality, but pretty good at getting it right.

Meddling in this area has become a worthwile contribution to human happiness, giving hope to many and creating interesting and troublesome moral dilemmas all the while. The law and not the churches must decide how to absorb these new possibilities.

It's amusing how the most sanctimonious in this thread, who insist on referring to the imperfect products of scientific intervention as babies with rights conferred at fertilisation, are the same ones who would probably oppose research in this area, or stem-cell research or a woman's right to choose.

Let me guess, your answer would be prayer right?

And in case you haven't noticed, the debate is over. Three courts have found against the would be mother. We sympathise. And I still think he's a prat.

The ifs, buts, misogynism, and ball-breaking above are now irrelevant. His right superseded hers. Just as a mother's right to abort without consent of the father would have superseded his.

I believe both these positions are the correct ones.

Well done the judges. I depart, temporarily, from my usual position that all lawyers are scum sucking bottom feeders.

Justice has been done,thanks to a european court system!Surely there are enough unwed mothers in Britain already?All taxpayers and supporters of the two parent family are breathing a huge sigh of relief at this wise decision.

#81

You are right, but freezing unfertilised eggs was not feasible when these two began their 15 minutes of fame. See my earlier post.

Without meaning to appear conceited, I feel the ECHR got it wrong. Mr Johnstone had already given his permission to create the embryo. To allow its destuction because he didn't want to be the resulting child's father is to miss the point. It is to treat the embryo as less than even a piece of property. How many houses are destroyed because one of the partner's no longer wishes to assume responsibility for say the morgage payments?

By giving his sperm for the purpose of creating the embryo he to my view entered a solemn contract. The natural progression thereafter, would always have been to give expression to the purpose of that. In orther words, life.

Rights rights rights. Where's the responsibility? Where's the moral courage?

I feel terrible for this woman, but in this case I think the law did what it had to do. I can't see forcing fatherhood on a man who doesn't want it- and in a strange sort of way I applaud him for not just letting her have the baby and ignoring it...plenty of fathers walk out even after there's a living, crying baby in the crib.

It's a shame for her, no question about it, she's gotten a bad hand with the cancer...but then I've never understood the obsession to have "biological" children...a lot of women can't and there are other options.

What puzzles me is me how women still agree to reproduce from such men, even in such grave situation. By the way and as far as I remember, the major reason for cervical cancer is sexually transfered pappiloma virus. So the guy was definitely a catch.

#88 Setting to one side your inappropriate use of terms (a fertilised egg is not an embryo), your description of the "natural progression thereafter" is entirely incorrect. Without a huge amount of artificial intervention, a fertilised egg outside a woman's body will simply die. Significant intervention is required at every step to stop that natural progression. And each part of that significant intervention is a choice.

If you want nature to have taken its course you wouldn't even have allowed them to freeze the eggs in the first place. And you would have let this woman likely die, to boot.

Sad, but ultimately it is a just decision. The sperminator should have the same rights as the egguliser and it is good to see that reflected. Its hard not to come across as a barsteward in making that judgement, as you obviously would hope that anyone that wants to have a child can. She can still have a family though, and she has other options regarding raising children eg adoption.
Had the child been born, would the csa have gone after the dad for money?!

Well Nick and Jennie, you bring up some interesting points. Can we bring up three importantant considerations for debate.

1. Legality.
2. Morality.
3. Ethics.

1. Seems like the system over here in Europe has run its cause. Maybe, if the claim was that the complainant had only sex with the plaintiff and he being a "calvalier" type of individual, he caused her to have uterine cancer?

Seems like the legal part has run its course?

So you are left with morality and ethics to discuss (whatever you decide means nothing in respect of the legal conclusion). Law can't enforce what you decide.

2. What might be the moral case?What is the difference between morality and ethics. I understand that morality is the "right or wrong" component of ethics but I am just a humble scientist. I am sure plenty of people can and will advise us on this.

3. If he promised to do something but changed his mind, he might be morally devoid. If she wants only the babies because she wants to trap him, she might be morally devoid. Pretty hard to tell is it not? I believe she wants her own babies but although I have never heard it, I respect he might have concerns. Something to ponder on?

What did she expect?

Sorry #92, but I believe that the honourable thing WAS for the man to say that he would not want the child - surely better saying that now than when the poor kid's been born and is trying to know its father?

Or are you saying that men who use contraception with a broody partner are also being mean spirited and selfish?

Picking up on recent posts, we might say that this is a very sad case but the concept is something that very much requires debate.

Something is seriously wrong with the European Court of "Human Rights." When Mr. Johnson fertilized the eggs he consented to fatherhood. Just because the jerk changed his mind makes no difference. Look at it this way. Had he fertilized the eggs the old-fashioned way then decided that he didn't want the baby would anyone consider letting him force abortion on the woman? Of course not, but at heart that is what he is doing.

Dox,
I believe you are pot on with regard to analysing this.

#99 What I don't understand in your logic is that you say the man has no right to change his mind, but what about the woman? Why should she have the right to choice and him not? She was not fixed to any timetable, nor any commitment to use the eggs. She chose to try to use the eggs at a time that suited her and in a way that suited her. She had the option not to do so too. According to you, he has no right to the same level of choice?

101 I see your point. I think that a man should have the choice to stop a woman from aborting his child, but not the other way around. They both had already consented to have the child, and he should have as much right to USE the fertilized eggs with a surrogate if he wants, that makes sense. What does not make sense to me is his later desire to see them destroyed. What purpose could this possibly serve except vindictiveness.

#5 You're talking absolute sh*te, it's about time women realised that a sh*g is not a commitment, and long overdue for natural conception to be brought into line with this ruling.

I think it's a very sad situation. I feel very sorry for her, but I can also see it from Mr Johnson's point of view. I don't think the court could really come to any other conclusion. It's a shame though.

Duncan 101, you may have a good point there but it is not exactly like a one night stand after the Palaise de Dance. For both of them to go to some effort of producing embryos, arranging for their freezing and paying the maintenance over the years shows some degree of committment.

To be honest for everyone, that is something that we all have to learn in life. We often blindly take the signs of committment as part of the process of "for ever and ever". Some couples are blessed with "for ever and ever" but not too common.

I can say that sometimes that the impression of commitment is part of the scheme of things but maybe not the scheme that you think that you have committed to or want.

#102 Fair enough, but in that case do you believe that the woman had no choice but to use the eggs as soon as she was able? In other words, would you also oppose her right to choose not to use these eggs? Would you force her to try to have children if she didn't want to?

a lot of men with strange and strong attitudes towards kids and women...... i can see how the poor women get attacked, raped and left preg. it appears as if it there fault.....
this guy is a prat.... anyone want to give him a good kicking..

This is the slippery slope we are all so happy to throw ourselves down.

My question is: why is the father still holding them after five years, except to use them as pawns in his vicious game? If he really cared nothing for them, he'd have ordered them destroyed long since. It's the threat of using them with a surrogate that causes the embryos' mother real pain; the father knows that, so he continues his sordid and sinful game in order to inflict as much suffering on his erstwhile partner as he possibly can.

# 88 you may not be conceited but you are ignorant and your retrospective opinion irrelevant.

The law and the courts decide what is and is not implied by the actual wording of the consent form HoJo agreed.

Three courts have exhausted this and judged that his consent in the context of her wish to implant THEIR frozen experiment after their relationship ended WAS NOT GIVEN.

In hindsight, a better written consent agreement could have (but did not) spell out, much like a will does, the intent of each party in a variety of circumstances. The courts cannot make unreasonable inferences and with that smug twat sitting there denying consent, they had no choice but to agree he did not so consent.

The law REQUIRES consent; no written agreement provided it in this case. End of.

Want to influence the law? Campaign or get elected.

As a woman, would I want my ex, with whom I no longer had a relationship, to use MY genetic material to implant his new partner with MY child?

Erm, no.

This is about choice. Why do we find it fair to say woman have a choice about when and where to become mothers, but not men to become fathers?

Not fair. Not on.

The court come to the only fair decision it could make.

She wasn't even married to this bloke!

Dox, you make a very strong point. Once you create a human being, do you really have the right to destroy it?

Admittedly we have given women the right to do so, but more and more, I find myself going over to the anti-abortionist sector even though I still believe that the right of a woman to self-determination is just as important in law.

Right from the start I opposed late term abortion, but now have come to the realisation that abortion in and of itself is terribly, terribly wrong, despite the obvious fact that once the woman is pregnant, she (in purely natural terms) has become only a vessel for the support of the new life, and that is what the pro-abortion laws tried to remedy.

These are incredibly difficult questions, in both legal and moral terms, and so far no one has come up with an answer that is really just as well as really moral.

#108, he DID ask for them to be destroyed. Years ago. She immediately went to court. This has been dragging on for 6 years.

His wishes to have the embryos destroyed after the 'relationship' (NOT marriage) broke down were immediately a case for the court system.

NO 63
I am martian. In Easter and Chritsmas I give bread and in Eid I hang Saddam.
Natallie Evans broke down in tears after her appeal to use embryos fertilised by her ex-partner was rejected.
Picture: Getty Images
Getty good story lousy. 63. Can I have some coins for ticket to come to London and then see the report then I can tell you who you are man or women. I do not know You state. Facts must be proved. Say you have and ego I am a man" So/ Darwin tell us we are apes. You Gorrila??

#113 Absolute classic. How do you come up with these? Brilliant.

I think a key question is up to what point can the sperm donor change his mind. Obviously once a child is born it is too late. Before the sperm donation it is probably okay. After implantation most would argue that he could not force her to have an abortion because he decided he didn't want to become a father. My opinion (and that is all that it is) is that after the fertilization he can not change his mind. He could request that she reconsider, but in the current circumstances I can see why she would not do so.
As for having fatherhood forced upon him, fatherhood means more than donating sperm. If there is an agreement that he has no legal or financial responsibility than it is up to his own conscience whether or not he is a "father" to any children.
Who knows, maybe he will change his mind again and be glad that the child was born. It seems changing ones mind is much a man's prerogative as a woman's.

The man "consents" to fatherhood each time he copulates with a woman. The consent is implied, UNLESS the man takes ACTIVE steps on his part to ensure that the sperm cannot possibly meet the egg.

And as for women, they also consent to motherhood by the same process as men do. If you go to bed with somebody and have unprotected sex, it's only fair to assume that you have consented to parenthood. You've also consented to acquiring any diseases that the partner may be carrying.

Now: these two people, as has been pointed out, went to the trouble and expense of having eggs removed, creating embryos, and having the embryos frozen. It can easily be seen that they BOTH definitely had consented to parenthood for one or both of them, at some future point. The man's sperm was caught at the fertility clinic, so he had to participate actively in its capture. The woman had to undergo a painful procedure to have her eggs removed, and the man during all this time was well aware of what was happening.

Frankly, I think the court was dead wrong in its decision. Each party to the action has rights, but the right of the woman to USE the embryos for the purpose for which they were created ought to prevail, because that was why the embryos were created in the first place. This is known to be the case by all concerned.

As for the future, no human being can read the future, and you can't prevent people from exercising their present rights because of what MIGHT happen. Otherwise, no prisoner would ever be released from prison because he MIGHT commit a crime again.

I see this as a totally misogynistic decision, in which the rights of the woman were completely ignored.

As many others have said, this is all-round a very sad case. I agree with the court's decision though.

I agree that having babies is not a right and that some people just are not able to.

While Ms Evans was willing to seek no support of any kind from Mr Evans, perhaps that's not his idea of fatherhood. Maybe, if he has children, he actually wants to be involved in their lives and be their father not just the sperm-provider. Nobody seems to have thought of this. Now that they are apart, that would not be the case.

Someone far up the thread mentioned the possibility of a bad outcome for Ms Evans, eg dying in the next few years. Suppose she did have the embryos implanted (and it was successful, which is not guaranteed), gave birth then died when the child was very young. Who would get the child then? Why, the father of course.

As I said, a very very sad case.

#116 With respect, I think the flaw in your argument is that you claim that by their actions they "had consented to parenthood for one or both of them, at some future point". If consent is indeed implied in the act of going for IVF treatment, as you posit, then they had only ever consented to parenthood for BOTH of them together, not for just one of them alone. And neither of them chose the parenthood together option. The woman chose parenthood alone, and the man chose no parenthood. There was no implicit consent for the woman's choice.

Your accusations of misogyny are misplaced. I suggest you read some of the court rulings to see how this was handled in law; it wasn't done with any sort of ignoring of the rights of the woman, but with a balancing of the rights and responsibilities of both parties.

Not really her 'last chance of motherhood'. She could always adopt?

109. The whole point of this board is to exchange opinions. In that context, mine is no less or more "irrelevant" than yours. We're all ignorant in the sense that no one is all knowing, so maybe we all need to display a little humility? As for the law, your whole post rests on the assumption that all agreements, be they contactual or not, must be in writing. Not so. Even fully legally binding contracts can be agreed by the spoken word or by action. I am making the proposition that when Mr J fertalised the egg of Ms J he by that action, made a committment to her. The destruction of the embryo (91, that was the BBC report's term, and also the above article's term. Saying as you do, 'their not embryos, their fertalised eggs', is like saying 'it's not a duck, it's a feathered creature with webbed feet, a large bill, that floats in water and goes 'quack'), breaches that committment. Ms J now has to go through real and actual trauma as a result. Creating it and then destroying it, is the issue here. Once it was created, the whole dynamics changed and that should not be ignored or given inadequate weight.

After reading all of these posts, I do have a couple of questions or maybe just take them as my 2 cents.

If she knew he didn't want to have children with her after the break up, did she think she could browbeat or guilt him into agreeing? Did she want support for whatever children would have come from the embryos?

Would there not be a way for the ex to become an anonymous donor (as so many other sperm donors have)(I know, a little late for anonymous) and sign away his rights to the possible children born from the eggs? That way she gets to become the mother she wants to be and he is no longer involved? Simple solution to a not so simple problem...

Just because there are viable embryos does not mean they would "take" for lack of a better word. So why not spend the big bucks on adoption? Birthing a child does not a mother make, raising it to the best of her abilities does...

I feel sad for everyone involved. They could all use a bit of therapy to find closure...

well, I agree with whom ever it was that said that Natallie's intentions were ALWAYS clear. Rather difficult to negate that fact. The father, at the time consented to the fertilization...OBVIOUSLY! So his intentions at the time were also quite clear. Now he's changed his mind...out of spite I'd guess, but regardless of the reasons...is there not some kind of legal fenangling that can be done that excuses him for ever having to participate in the childs life, personally or financially? And to whom ever said that a child needs a father

122 continued....
give a good look around you...anyone can be a father or a mother....and either is VERY good at being exactly what a child does not need. Any well balanced adult can be a good parent...and one good parent is a far better deal than two crappy ones.

#122 You say that the woman's intentions were always clear; but would you have allowed her to change her mind were it the other way around? Would you have forced her to have a baby against her will to meet the right of the man?

#118-- you make a good point. Clearly they were thinking of joint parenthood at the time they went through the lengthy and expensive process of securing eggs from the female partner, and fertilizing them sperm from the male partner.

HOWEVER: each of the parties to the dispute was also aware of the possibility of a split in their relationship. As I understand it, this couple was not married when they created the embryos. Each one had the capacity to understand that in the event they did not remain together, the embryos would be in a nitrogen limbo, even if this was not articulated either by or to them. It is one of the contingencies that adult human beings have to take into account when they embark on such a venture.

Now that the father of these embryos has decided that fatherhood is not for him, I guess that by extension, a man has the right to kill offspring after birth that he is bored with or tired of? In fact, this very "right" has recently been proposed by someone-- it made the newspapers here.

This is what I mean by the "slippery slope." It has taken two millennia to reach the point that we are today. Two thousand years ago, Roman fathers had the power of life and death over everyone in their households. We finally today acknowledge the rights of every human being, except for those who are unborn. Yet, we seem to be going backward into history, instead of forward, if a man can destroy embryos he himself took part in creating, and we already allow women to have abortions even though at the time of their conceptions, in 99 percent of the cases, the woman as well as the man was implicitly consenting to the creation of new life.

I don't think that Mr Johnston ever consented to have children. By fertilising the eggs he was giving himselfthe option to have them with Ms Evans at some point in the future. That's what the law says.
he made this decision while the two of them were in a relationship and she was struck with this terrible disease. A reasonable action, not doing so would have removed any chance of the two of them having children - and most couples wouldn't want to close the door on that. However it isn't reasonable to expect this to extend beyond the end of their relationship.

The relationship broke down, and she lost her chance to have children. Is this really that different morally to a couple staying together childless to a point where the female is no longer able to bear children? Has the man robbed her of the chance to have a family?

Oh, and this is an entirely different situation to abortion or - god forbid - killing your own children. Only the most rabid of anti-abortionists would consider an embryo sitting in a freezer for 5 years to be alive.

Mr Johnson seems to be a rather pathetic spoiled child. As usual an issue between Scots is settled elsewhere.

I agree with the Court's decision. The relationship between Natalie and Mr. J. is over. Mr. J. agreed to having the eggs frozen when he was in a relationship. He has 50% control over the eggs and if he does not want to be a parent then that is his right to do so. If the roles were reversed and he were now infertile and wanted to use them to produce a baby with his new partner, I doubt very much if Natalie would consent and that would be her choice. As a woman, I would be more concerned about bringing a child into the world if I had been diagnosed with cancer. I would be worried about who would take care of my child if I died very young or were to become too ill due to the cancer treatment. Before I get my head chopped off for that remark, I realize that children can be born to perfect circumstances and parents can become sick (that's part of life's process and there is nothing we can do about that) but I would like to think that most "single women" given the choice are responsible enough to think about their child before it is born and the circumstances in which they are bringing a child into the world. There are too many people out there who have children and who are not responsible enough to be good parents - and it's always the children who suffer. (I am not suggesting that Natalie would not have been a good parent for all I know she would have been fabulous but that's not the cards she has been dealt). I am 45, have no children and have been "labelled" by some who have children to be "not natural" - it's not natural for a woman not to want children. I didn't want kids - never did until I reached 38. By then my marriage was failing but there was no way I would have considered having a child given my circumstances. Guess I am old fashioned - I think a child starting off should have a mother and a father and life's journey will determine what happens after that!! I am an animal lover of two male labs who have been neu

she should have thought to have just her eggs frozen. that way she could have had her dreams come true. i do agree though that if he was willing to have fertilize the eggs he should let her go ahead with it. also, when the embryo's are destroyed he is killing his own children. maybe he should think of it that way.

#122 Duncan: The human male has no biological function in parenthood once the sperm leaves his body. He may as well, for all that nature is concerned, be a salmon. Once he copulates, his role is complete according to the laws of biology. Human males are not sea horses or any other organism whose genetic makeup decrees that the male shall take part in the nurture of the young.

The human female, in the same sense, bears the entire burden of reproduction. Men, and especially young men, are only interested in the sex act itself, not in what we think of as the two-decade-long investment of time, emotion, and labor that we call "fatherhood." This male lack of concern is well-known to the courts and social services, and the police, since it is the females who are left pregnant and unsupported while the biological fathers go blithely on their way with no consequences from their actions unless the crime is rape.

Nonetheless, the act itself is an implicit statement that the man has consented to parenthood, even if he himself is unconscious of that fact at the time.

The creation of life is no less profoundly important than its destruction. Just as there's no going back from murder, there's no going back once a life has been created. Frankly, I think that the courts were in gross error in their decision on this one, and that the rights of the woman to use those embryos that she underwent surgery to create ought to prevail. It is she who will have to gestate those embryos, not the male; it is she who will undergo the birth process, and it is she, and she has agreed, not to claim any further support from this egregiously depraved and indifferent father.

#125 I take your point. It is to be assumed (though it can only be an assumption) that at the time they stored the embryos they were concerned more with the woman's health and the urgency of the medical need than with the idea of futures and contingencies. Perhaps one or other, or both, felt pressured to take part in the IVF? This was a lone opportunity after all, in the face of a biological certainty post-op. It wouldn't be beyond belief that the man had doubts about the relationship even then, but felt compelled to help. And the woman too may have doubted the relationship, but seen this as her one chance to try to bear children. So even this initial consent could have been imperfect on either side, understandably given the pressures they were under. And perhaps, as #126 suggests, this was really about keeping options open rather than explicitly consenting.

I feel desperately sorry for the woman. But I simply do not see the same "slippery slope" that you do here. Indeed, your suggestion that the right of a man to control how his own gonads should be used is equivalent to the right of a father to kill children he is tired of is patently ridiculous.

The cruel blow that has been struck here is that of the ovarian cancer. Everything else is just imperfect people trying to deal with their situations as best they could.

130. Sherri: at the time, the technology of freezing eggs was not available, according to another post on this forum.

#131 I read this:

'Men, and especially young men, are only interested in the sex act itself, not in what we think of as the two-decade-long investment of time, emotion, and labor that we call "fatherhood."'

and quite frankly I think, f*** you. Plenty of men understand what fatherhood means and commit to it with their whole hearts. You have exposed yourself as nothing but a misandronist. Shame on you.

Duncan: unless there is some kind of external evidence existing from the time of fertilization that the man was under pressure to release his sperm to fertilize this woman's eggs, any claims five years later that he was under this pressure have no merit.

He DID have every right to decide that his sperm would or would not be used for fertilizing this woman's eggs, and he decided to do it. That is clear on the face of it. No one dragged him off kicking and screaming to the fertility clinic, and no one besides himself helped to release the sperm from his body into a receptacle for immediate use. He had plenty of time to think about what he was doing and its implications.

IF at a later point he is then allowed to destroy those embryos, or use them for a purpose not intended, then his rights have superceded the rights of the female partner, and that is NOT justice.

No, Duncan, I am not a man-hater. I am simply stating what every policeman, social worker, lawyer and judge has seen time and time again in his/her career. To say nothing of the victims, the women and children.

Not all men are so indifferent, but far too many of them are. How can you argue that, when the evidence is overwhelming?

Alot of you say "well, she can adopt". It's NOT the same as having your own child - it can take years to adopt a healthy baby and spend alot of money to do it. She could adopt an older child, but then you really don't know if the child comes with problems. For those who don't know, many people who do adopt find later on that they don't have a bond with that child no matter what they do - it's not intentional. I myself can't have children and coming to this resolution in my life is the most painful thing any woman can go through. When this man agreed to fertilize these eggs and then go against the decision AFTER it was too late for her, he lied to her and put her thru alot of unneeded crap. I think this whole decision is wrong and I feel terrible for her. I hope that one day this man will fall in love, change his mind about wanting to be a father and then can't (his fault) - let the tables be turned. What goes around comes around.

Duncan, from a reasoned and intelligent argument, you sink into filthy language. Shame on YOU.

#131. Some man must have treated you really dreadfully to you to make you think like that...

Theresa, I agree with you. Justice was not done in this case. This was a triumph of misogynistic legality.

The embryos were created so that this woman could have children. The man agreed and participated in the process to the extent that nature allows, which is very slight indeed. But he did agree, and he did participate. Otherwise there would be no embryos.

Now, in spite and a hate-filled retaliation (against what?), he refuses to let her use those embryos for their intended purpose. His rights, slender though they are in nature, have superceded hers through legal decision. This is a travesty of what we call justice. Justice would be to let the man have two embryos for whatever he wanted to do with them, and let the woman have two to be implanted. If the implantation failed, so be it. That is out of everyone's control

But as it stands now, this woman's rights are totally crushed and stand for nothing. She isn't even allowed half of her own fertilized eggs.

139-- you are absolutely correct. I could not have believed the moral depths that men can sink to had it not happened to me-- even when I could observe around me the terrible suffering that women now and down through the ages have undergone because of men. It is one of those instances when you can only truly know it because you have experienced it-- it awakens your consciousness.

as a woman, I wholehearted support the court's decision, and while very very sad for the trials Ms. Evans has and is facing, I don't see where some poster's here think he's somehow violated her "right" to motherhood? 1) Motherhood is NOT a right 2) It's HIS sperm, he has every legal right, indeed obligation, to do what HE feels is just for HIM, just as any woman has the right to do with her ovum. 3) He DID try to get the eggs destroyed after their breakup. Too bad she immediately started on the petty tie it up in the courts action. 4) Forced fatherhood is absolutely just as bad as forced motherhood.

While it's certainly not a perfect outcome, this is an imperfect world. One might even hazard that we as mere humans really shouldn't be mucking about with the whole "let's create a kid for later in case we want one" scenario anyway. Smacks of bit of playing God to me. We don't store fertilized embryos like snack food, we won't have these issues.

And there are quite literally millions of unwanted children out there for her to adopt. Shame on her for posing to say motherhood is now out of her reach.

I can only apologise on behalf of my gender, but I assure you we are not all like that. Please don't tar us all with the same brush.

#137 Theresa....you talk about adopting a needy child as if they are puppies. Shame on you for placing a lesser value on their life. You speak of them as if they somehow aren't worth your precious time or consideration because you don't know their lineage. Let me tell you, you are not worthy of THEM, not the other way around.

Oh, and before the bleeding hearts come out, I can't have children either. for the same reasons as natalie cannot.

142 -- YES!!! Hear! Hear!

#134 Duncan #135 Martha.

Duncan , 99% of the time I would disagree with Martha, but this 1% I agree with her. I know she thinks she knows everything...but!!

So far as male homo sapiens are concerned, all they think of and seek is SEX, and shagging. Its that inwired primal drive to keep the species going. Plus a good measure of lust and domination.

Not very long ago my friends and I were in college and aside form the academic demands , we were shagging all the time , consentual sex with student female homo sapiens. Its all natural, and needs no man made laws to stifle it.

I think you could call Mr Johnson a complete asshole for his robort type action.

I pity any future woman who has misfortune to partner up with him.

GC

All that is natural

If only she had put her faith in the same god that helped that golfer win at the weekend.

#141
Your views are totally blighted by your own personal experiences. You are a very bitter person who has no sense of perspective on the situation.

Galactic Cannibal, you are quite wrong: I do NOT think I know everything. If my arguments infuriate you, then that's too bad. But that I annoy you does not indicate that I think I am omniscient-- omniscience is God's, and God's alone.

All the rest of us, by contrast, know virtually nothing.

148: sorry that you feel that way. I'm not bitter, just saddened by the horrible spectacle I see every day, or don't you read the newspapers or watch the evening news? Male crimes, just the males who are caught, outnumber female crimes 10:1. Crimes of violence are nearly always male, and crimes against women and children are overwhelmingly male, in the high 90 percentiles.

You would have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid not to see it. Do muslim women kill men in honor killings? Are men stoned for adultery in those societies? Did men have their feet bound, were they imprisoned in chastity belts, were they branded with the letter "A" if caught in adultery? Were they kept in purdah, were they forced to wear burqas? Were they forbidden to own their own property after marriage? Were they forced to have children whether they wanted them or not? Were men traded among other men for sex slaves?

No: it is the weak, women and children, who have these things happen to them, down through history. Where have you been all your life? This is not to say that many men are not good citizens, careful fathers, loving husbands, because they were and are. But so many AREN'T.

You come across as a very bitter, nasty person - imagine bringing in the deaf, dumb, blind or stupid as part of your argument - hope that you never experience any of those disabilities....though you are showing advanced stages of the latter...

The vast majority in the civilised West ARE though Martha. That is why we dragged out sorry backsides out of the uncivilised quagmire of the Dark Ages and Biblical times and moved on through several revolutions.

We in the West are probably in the last revolution, the Equality Revolution whereas these other things you were writting about happen in undemocratic and backward facing countries.

You will have to learn to differientiate between the 2 as all the bloggers here are,in the majority, born an bread civilised West and brought up by people just like you and me. That mean, we(men) have little or no idea of the atrocities we see elsewhere in the world and condemn them as much as you do.

born and bred....apologies, been a long day looking after me kids et al.

#140 - quite right, they should get half each...they should cut each embryo in half and see what she can do what she likes with them!!!

You have the most awful argument, its so weak its funny, and perhaps I shouldn't be poking fun at you as you clearly have no handle on reality.

#150 Martha

you wrote
"omniscience is God's, and God's alone. "
This means you have faith and believe in magic.
Ponder this (its very simplisitc )

Your Dog ..sorry I mean your God.

Can this thing (God) who allegedly knows everything, create a rock so big and so heavy, it cannot lift ?

Some of my friends have arrived so we will be space waking shortly, with the aid of magic schrooms.
But I will return with my proof concept of the NON -Existence of Dog ...sorry I meant God.

Enjoy your ability to breath Oxygen. And try not to miss it for more than 5 minutes.

Galactic Canniibal

The right decision , sadly. But I don't like the look of the fellow , do you ? Very , very painful for the poor lass.

144# wehle- I don't think that is what Teresa 137# was saying. I think what she was pointing out is that adoption is not the simple option that people seem to think it is. "Just adopt", people say, as if it was as easy as going down to the store to pick up a loaf of bread. Adoption carries with it a whole host of complications, and its own joys and sorrows. It's not just about giving poor unwanted kids a loving home any more than having biological children is just about fulfilling an innate human need to reproduce.

I don't think there is any "shame" in deciding that for whatever reason, adoption is not for you as an individual. Nor should it mean that you have to shut up forever about not being able to have kids.

It's really easy for folks who have never had to go through the heartbreak of infertility to blithely say that you can simply substitute the dream of a biological child with another choice (adoption, donor eggs, etc.). It's also really easy to say what YOU would personally do. I happen to think the judgment was legally correct, but I can also see how it's a very bitter pill for her to swallow.

Finally a nod to male reproductive rights. For years women have had the right to decide if they want to be a parent. And it has not mattered what stage of the pregnancy that decision has been made. Before, during or after. Let's switch this around a little. What if a women gets pregnant and decides to have the pregnancy aborted. Does the father of the child have "any" say in the matter? No! Can the father force the pregnancy to go to term? No!

Is that not what some of the posters here are suggesting, that one parent force a pregnancy.

And as for those that suggest that the father simply sign away his parental rights, and the mother sign away right to child support. Obviously these people have never dealt with family court. Those type of contracts are deemed null and void all the time, and then somebody that did not want to be a parent if "forced" into at least the fiscal responsibility.

I admit I did not read "all" of the posts here, but I did not see any suggestion of the use of a donated embryo. She then gets to experience the pregnancy, and the role of "mother".

111 Martha, I can only agree with you. It is an extremely thorny issue. How can anyone decide for a mother whether or not she must carry a child to term.

One thing that I'm very concerned about is the complete and absolute lack of say males have in this issue. This is strange because I'm actually siding with the fem in this case.

If it takes two to make a baby then it should take two to decide on an abortion. It should also take two to decide on adoption as well.

If I read this article correctly, the man did not want to "have children with her" on the one hand, or "be a parent" on the other. There's no fear about his being a parent -- a biological father is only a parent if he participates in rearing and providing, and clearly that wasn't a risk he had to bear or was being asked to bear. So what's left is he decided he no longer wanted to "have" children WITH HER. Meaning I suppose that he didn't want living children with their shared genetic material existing in the world. Unfortunately he had already voluntarily participated in creating them, and the material was as much hers as his, but he's been awarded the legal right to reverse his decision.

I would say he has arrogantly used the law to practice arbitrary eugenic extermination, for reasons that aren't good enough. Didn't want his get in the world at all, or at least not if they were half hers, even if he never saw them or paid a penny for them again. And he's made a decision to destroy viable and WANTED embryos, whose genetic material came equally from the one who wants them, and the law has supported this.

Arbitrary, and capricious, and self-centered in the extreme.

Mr. Johnston made his choice at the time he fertilized her last possible eggs. If he had one iota of human compassion, he would make an agreement with her to absolve him of any financial responsibility and let her have the children she yearns for. The absolute biological and emotional need to have one's genetic child is deeply human. Look at Ms. Evans, she spent five years fighting for the right to bear her own children! I don't believe anyone who has not been in her position can know of the scale of her trauma. I have some inkling: after having one beautiful child as a single mother by choice, and then a miscarriage, I have spent the last 30 months trying to conceive again. I don't know about the U.K., but this cost is not covered by insurance here in the U.S. I have spent my savings, my retirement account, and maxed my credit cards, about $60,000 U.S. I have endured the most wretched emotional, financial, and physical rollercoaster for 30 months straight while working full time and being the sole parent of my darling daughter. THAT's how much someone can yearn to be a parent. And I know women who have endured much worse. My heart bleeds for this woman, knowing that her potential children will be destroyed in the next few weeks. Some posters have blithely said, well she can just adopt, or use donor eggs and donor sperm. Again, I don't know how the U.K. medical system works, but in the U.S. none of this is covered by insurance. Creating and implanting an embryo costs about $30,000 here. As far as adoption, for instance here I am not considered a viable adoptive parent because I am over 40 and a single parent. I could get a special needs child but I would need to be a full-time stay at home mom. So, even if she is able to get over the extreme heartbreak, other options may not be open to her. I hope that Mr. Johnston responds to calls for simple human compassion and changes his mind. A note to some of the posters above who made negative comments about single mother

#142, couldn't agree with you more on your comment "we as mere humans really shouldn't be mucking about with the whole "let's create a kid for later in case we want one" scenario anyway. Smacks of bit of playing God to me".

and Martha's comment #131 "Once the male copulates, his role is complete - what a load of crap (yes I am Scottish!!) - are you trying to tell me that all men are that shallow - I don't think so. Some yes...... but there are just as many shallow women out there who enjoy the act of shagging and don't even consider the consequences or the responsibilities it could bring! Just because a woman gives birth doesn't make her the "best parent"!

A ballplayer throws and then has no control after release. A male pitches woo and then has no control after release, or that seems the way law of nature intended. Now MALE humans hidden in black robes insist they know better. What rubbish. The Politicians ought to step in immediately to restore all rights to the female in this case and in every subsequent case. But ACTION THIS DAY is required.

I would have to agree with number six; after all you wouldn’t have your children put down after splitting up, so why is he aloud to let his own child/children to be murdered, just because he has not seen their faces. This is getting a sad self centred, corrupt selfish world.

This was a 50-50 agreement for a 50-50 child, his and hers!

The insemination went ahead and the egg was fertilised. I would have thought this was the point (in the agreement) to have a child.

It was frozen but now the deal has changed to 100% in favour of Mr Johnson and no rights for Ms. Evans.

The woman has had cancer, a broken relationship and now she has to experience the loss of what could have been her baby, that's cruel. If Mr Johnson cared anything for her or the baby he would have allowed this to go ahead on the basis that Ms Evan's doesn't expect anything other than the child, no strings attached etc. Clearly his intentions are to punish.

If Ms Evans was to have a shortened life because of the cancer, she could have made arrangements for family members or appointed a guardian to care for the child.

She could have provided for the child in the event of her death with some sound financial advice.

Pender, I specifically said that according to the laws of biology, once the male has ejaculated his sperm, his role in reproduction, in strictly natural terms, is over. Comprendez?

113 - you REALLY are Sacha Baron Coehn, aren't you?

Faye: people with serious and even terminal diseases carry babies to term every year. No human can read the future, and to deny a woman the right to her own fertilized egg on the basis that she might die before the child is independent, is totally idiotic.

You're correct in saying that she could easily have made provision for the child, the very child in fact that her ex-lover helped her create but decided he no longer wanted at some point subsequent to its conception.

Now: this is identical to a woman deciding that she will abort a fetus that she, at the time of copulation, did not prevent. So the whole thing is one sick, sorry mess and now the courts are in on it and this will perpetuate itself over time, and more legal decisions will be based on it, and before long you'll have the child being able to be killed shortly after birth if the parents don't want it. Which of course a few people already do, but we still call them criminals. That may change.

#160 Dox: Yes, it is so difficult an issue that there is some wisdom in just banning abortions, and in refusing to maintain frozen embryos past one month. If people are that interested in having children that they (especially the woman, for whom it is complicated and painful) go through this process of extracting eggs and fertilizing them, then you'd think that the couple would immediately want the eggs implanted. What were they thinking? What kind of nonsense, evil nonsense, is this? And why would the courts pander to the male and not regard the female's rights at least equally?

Hugh: as I said: this is a triumph of legality and immorality over justice.

This is a truly sad and heartbreaking story. Made worse by the fact that it didn't have to happen. Had Ms Evans simply had her eggs harvested and frozen then there would be no dispute to resolve. Once the eggs are fertilized and the resultant embryos frozen a situation of this sort becomes inevitable at some time. So why did they both make the decision to go the extra steps. There are compelling reasons to do this. Between two thirds and half of eggs fail to fertilize. The success rate for IVF following embryo transfer is around 37% The average egg harvest yeilds around ten eggs. In Ms Evans case it makes perfect sense to proceed to fertilization and freezing the resultant embryos. She won't get a second bite at the cherry. She's not going to have any more eggs after her treatment so making sure there are the odds are favourable for transfer and pregnancy following her treatment requires fertilization. At this point in time this requires the active consent of Mr Jonstone, as in no sperm no fertilization. I feel that Ms Evans has been penalized for attempting to maximize both their chances of succesfully having a child. While it won't help Ms Evans I think this identifies a legislative anomoly because Ms Evans is a member of an identifiable set of patients requesting IVF treatment. The stuation regarding males facing infertility as a result of medical procedures is fundamentaly different. The technology of sperm preservation has a high success rate and is well developed. For those agitiating for fathers rights this is a straw horse. At no point in this case were access rights an issue (They weren't mentioned, so they aren't an issue!) I have no problem with the law in the uk regarding this issue being re-examined I would say that reviewing the positions of the various action groups that some sensible legal advice be sought by them, parts of what they advocate are just broken and will kill the rest of what are legitimate requests for review. This story is not abo

Something very weird here, I may be ignorant, but does the embryos not belong to the mother and not the father?..Seems this Euro Court bunch are playing God!...

#175 hindmost
I am a decendent of some tribal hominids who probably when they were starving, took to cannibalism.

So as the ions passed, our so called civilization came to be.

But one thing remained and must stay on. to continue the species. Its known as copulating , or shagging ,or genital sex etc. etc.

And all these man made laws , about who is right and who is wrong re: Natallie Evans are pure CRAP.

Hey this guy Johnson was shagging Natallie night after night until they parted.
Then she got sick and the rest of the story says only one thing .
Mr Johnson does not recognize the word compasion.

He is one sad asshole. Even his photo shows what a robort like creature he is.

Galactic Cannibal

#178
read compassion.
GC

#172 Hugh V

you exist from a line of hominids. In thier caves they shagged and wandered to find food to stay alive. they had no laws , but they are your ancestore.

You sound like Johnson a robort like creature.

In any even, none of this matters, as we all end up like the hominids ,,,dead.

Galactic Cannibal

Martha, I become more and more incredulous the more I read your bitter discourse. Because you have had a bad experience, you tar all men with the same brush. As a result, there is no logic to your argument, only misandrony and revenge. I suggest that you do not know these people, and so you cannot know their minds at any time during this process. You condemn the man for exercising the same right to choose as you confer on the woman. You simply have no compassion for the man at all. Thank heavens that we have a rational legal system in the UK, instead of all living at the whim of a woman scorned.

I think that people should remember that these are not babies but a bunch of cells. If she really wants to be a mother why does she not adopt. There are children out there who need a mother and if she wants it so bad then give them mother. Being a mother is not only giving birth it is many things!

A blow for equal rights for men, lets see an end to forced fatherhood.

Many of the 'posts' I read here seem to indicate that IVF treatment results automatically into a successful pregnancy, and all that is required here is for Mr Johnson to give his consent and Ms Evans will be a mother, unfortunately, that is not the case, the success rate of IVF is between 16 pc. to 19 pc. (hospitals always overstate their success result) many people have tried four or five times with no success, one desperate woman tried eleven times, (cost her a fortune) without being successful.
I appreciate that this has nothing to do with the courts ruling on this matter, but it must be realised that even with Mr Johnson's consent there would be no guarranty that Ms Evans would achieve motherhood, on the contrary, the odds would be heavily against her.
In any event, the courts ruling was correct.