Not that i actually HAVE a uterus but if i did and this happened to me the other couple would be shit out of luck. Can the law possibly be on their side? it wasn’t clear whether they are doing this voluntarily (although it certainly sounds that way) or because they have too, but either way they are a lot nicer about the whole thing than i would ever be.
Women give up children for adoption when they have not only carried the kid in their uterus, but have contributed genetic material to the kid.
I can understand why they’re giving it to the biological family, which sounds completely voluntary. To put it in the most basic terms, the woman in the article was an incubator. It’s not their baby. They have frozen embryos sitting in the lab, so why would they want to raise another couple’s child as their own?
Women who don’t want kids do, not the ones who are specifically trying to get pregnant.
What the crappity-crap? I’m with DigitalC, I don’t care whose genetic material it is, if I carry the little booger to term it’s my kid and I’ll be keeping my child thank you very much.
I feel for the folks who contributed the sperm and egg but day-um, I can’t see how they have a right to this kid. I’m really interested to hear the opposing view because I had a pretty strong knee-jerk reaction.
So they’re going to be on the other side of the equation soon. Another woman will be carrying their baby.
They sound like reasonable people to me. They’re probably going to ask the clinic that made the mistake to foot the bill for both pregnancies, and that is aslo reasonable.
I’m not sure how I feel about the need to ‘use up’ all of the embryos that they have stored. But I respect their decision to turn over this baby to its genetic parents. Since they’ve gone through fertility procedures themselves, they know exactly how the other couple must feel. The other couple was trying to get pregnant, too.
It doesn’t sound like they conceived this child solely for the purposes of having another child but because they had remaining embryos and had a religiously based reason for trying to bring those “lives” into being.
Also, there are a lot of people I’ve run into who have no interest in not raising their own biological children. I’m an adoptive mom, and run into “how could you raise a kid who isn’t YOURS” all the time. And, frankly, anyone who values the biology that much shouldn’t raise a kid who biologically isn’t theirs.
The story is tragic and generous and disappointing and hopeful and complex. One in which there really isn’t a “right” answer. They’d be justified in keeping the child…they are justified in deciding it should be with its bio parents.
I think it is a beautiful outcome. The “gestational” parents seem at peace with what happened and the biological parents are thrilled. The Savages seem like a genuinely kind family.
Good points Dangerosa and IvoryTowerDenizen, the Savages seem like good, considerate folks.
I don’t get the “kid that isn’t YOURS” crap. I loathe some of the people I’m related to but I count some of my friends as family. It seems like a weird thing to fixate upon.
I’m going to move this from The BBQ Pit to Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share, at least for now.
Gfactor
Pit Moderator
It’s a good point for discussion, though: let’s say the Savages wished to keep the child and the biological parents disagreed? Who should prevail, and why?
Let’s say the Savages wished to keep the child but the biological parents didn’t want the child born at all. Whose wishes should control then?
And let’s say the other couple turn out to be Bill and Melinda gates-level rich. Child support is typically the right of the child, not the custodial parent. Could a meaner, unreasonable version of the Savages ask for child support?
I’m not sure I’d call it crap. The pull for a biological child is really big. People accept and reject their kids (bio and adopted) for stupid reasons - not having your genetics seems almost reasonable in the “you sided with your Mom in the divorce,” “you are gay,” “you never liked hunting like the rest of the family” crap families pull.
A lot of people are very proud of their genetic lineage. And a lot of people are scared of the unknowns that someone unrelated might bring to the genetic lineage. Right now, my son is having some minor hip issues - is it those unknown genetics? And these are minor - there is some scary genetic shit out there that if you knew it was part of your makeup, you might opt into kids or opt out - but when the kids are not your biological kids, you aren’t getting the choice.
IMAO, the gestational mother has the right to say, “My uterus = my kid.” However, the equitable solution is to give the little tricycle motor to the genetic parent with the stipulation gestational Mom & Dad be considered aunt and uncle.
Part and parcel is making life hell for the fertility clinic, which it sounds like they’re doing.
Hasn’t this happened before? Where a woman had twins*, one hers and one who belonged to another couple and the first couple was forced to give the second couple their biological child back?
*I guess the babies weren’t really twins since they weren’t related.
I wonder what happened to the embryo of hers that was supposed to be implanted?
According to an interview I read on CNN, they didn’t even call the mother with the information. They called her husband and gave him the news. I would’ve thought hipaa regulations would’ve prohibited that.
StG
Wait…so they called his phone by accident? Sounds reasonable so far, depending on what contact number the couple left with the staff.
But they didn’t notice that the voice on the phone was rather masculine-sounding for a woman? :smack:
And they didn’t notice that the voice responded to the name SEAN, and not to the name CAROLYN? :smack::smack:
I’m starting to see how this top-notch staff might have slipped the wrong embryo into the wrong uterus…:smack::smack::smack:
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/27/nyregion/visiting-rights-denied-in-embryo-mix-up-case.html
It didn’t happen exactly the way I remembered, but here’s the story I was thinking about.
I’m not a lawyer but don’t the courts usually favor biological parents in custody disputes, unless they are proven unfit? In this case the biological parents did not sign away any parental rights, and they are not unfit. I think the law would be on their side.
I would assume that the courts cannot compel a woman to have an abortion as it violates her right to privacy.
This raises the question of whether the other couple has any legal obligation to a child that they did not knowingly implant. Since they did create an embryo with the assumed intention of having a child, then I suppose you could argue they do have a legal obligation. An interesting question.
Just because your artwork is delivered to the wrong gallery doesn’t mean that it’s not your artwork.
It’s fortunate for all involved that it seems like all the parties have found a solution that appeals to them, because this could easily have become a nightmare. Imagine if the Savages preferred to abort the embryo rather than bring it to term – it’s not biologically their embryo, but it’s still Mrs. Savage’s uterus, so she has a right to decide what does and doesn’t grow in it. Such a scenario would probably be traumatic for the other parents.