Assisted Reproductive Technology

[Mike M (the other one)]

Go Mick!!
Women curse the invention of Viagra. Before that, women really liked their old sugar daddies. They had it easy, give him a lap dance and let him slap it a couple of times and daddy was happy and paid for it. Not so easy now. Gotta have sex with the old buggers if you want that money.

And yeah that Sophia thing is really weird.

[*bfine32*]

(12-08-2016, 07:55 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Sophia Vergara being sued by ex-fiance for custody of frozen embryos, Emma and Isabella, so he can implant them in a surrogate against her wishes and in contravention to their signed contract

I think we can all agree that the father should have equal rights to the embryo.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-08-2016, 10:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think we can all agree that the father should have equal rights to the embryo.

Did you read the link?

[*bfine32*]

(12-08-2016, 10:13 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Did you read the link?

I did

[Rotobeast]

(12-08-2016, 07:55 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Weird day in the news . . .

Seventy-three year old Mick Jagger celebrates birth of 8th child

Sophia Vergara being sued by ex-fiance for custody of frozen embryos, Emma and Isabella, so he can implant them in a surrogate against her wishes and in contravention to their signed contract

I'll take care of Sophia.
She doesn't need that baggy-eyed chump's DNA.
She just needs to give me a week and BAM !
Guaranteed !
 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-08-2016, 10:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think we can all agree that the father should have equal rights to the embryo.

Per the article, " the contract said that neither party could use the embryos without the consent of the other."

If you believe people shouldn't have unprotected sex if they don't want a baby (and you do), wouldn't logic dictate you would also believe the father shouldn't have signed the contract agreeing he couldn't use the embryos without consent of the mother (and vice versa) if he didn't want to be in this position? 

Per the contract cited in the article, the father has equal rights to the embryo. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-08-2016, 09:23 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Go Mick!!
Women curse the invention of Viagra. Before that, women really liked their old sugar daddies. They had it easy, give him a lap dance and let him slap it a couple of times and daddy was happy and paid for it. Not so easy now. Gotta have sex with the old buggers if you want that money.

And yeah that Sophia thing is really weird.

Which begs the question, bfine, should the government regulate pharmaceuticals for erectile dysfunction so 73 y/o geriatrics patients don't get artificial boners IOT conceive their 8th child?

As to the original question, no ova gets artificially fertilized if it isn't a part of God's plan. Who are you to dictate the government intervene in God's plan?

[CKwi88]

(12-09-2016, 01:26 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Per the article, " the contract said that neither party could use the embryos without the consent of the other."

Per the contract cited in the article, the father has equal rights to the embryo. 

I'd wager that they're going to remain deadlocked for a good long while. Both certainly do (and should) have equal rights to the embryos, but without an agreement they're essentially in a holding pattern without end. I have a hard time imagining a court ruling for the destruction of the embryos against the father's will or allowing father to have them brought to term by a surrogate without the Mother's consent.

Sounds like scientists will be able to determine if there is an upper limit on how long they can be frozen.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-09-2016, 04:26 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: I'd wager that they're going to remain deadlocked for a good long while. Both certainly do (and should) have equal rights to the embryos, but without an agreement they're essentially in a holding pattern without end. I have a hard time imagining a court ruling for the destruction of the embryos against the father's will or allowing father to have them brought to term by a surrogate without the Mother's consent.

Sounds like scientists will be able to determine if there is an upper limit on how long they can be frozen.

The court can uphold the contract (both parties must agree to implant an embryo in a surrogate) without ordering the destruction of the embryos. In other words, the embryos remain frozen indefinitely without mutual consent. That is the part I thought was another interesting theological paradox. 

[CKwi88]

(12-09-2016, 05:41 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The court can uphold the contract (both parties must agree to implant an embryo in a surrogate) without ordering the destruction of the embryos. In other words, the embryos remain frozen indefinitely without mutual consent. That is the part I thought was another interesting theological paradox. 

Hence The my final thought on the issue. Unless the parents budge one way or the other, "Emma" and "Isabella" will likely be on ice for a good long time.

Upon rereading, I noticed that this wasn't totally the father moving for this. Sounds more like some Louisiana Attorney is looking to get her name out there in the public view. 


And as a side note on the Mick Jagger deal. Didn't Chaplin knock up a girl when he was like 80? 

And as another side note, how in holy hell does a dude like Jagger live to 70+?