Hurrah! Common sense has prevailed! All the papers are predictably full of the news, because, well it is headline news and a landmark decision.
Here’s my interpretation:
Waaah! Waaaah!!! I can’t get my baby!! I want my OWN baby! And he, Mr Johnson is a BAD MEAN MAN, for not letting me have my OWN WAY. He won’t let me have what I want! No, stupid, of course I don’t want to adopt. How DARE he exercise his right to be or not to be a father?!? What does he mean he wants to choose when or if he wants to become a parent? I want to be a MOTHER!! A baby is my RIGHT. Stuff his rights! I want him to change his mind. I’ve asked him to change his mind… but he just won’t do it. He said he wanted babies back then and now he doesn’t. He just changed his mind! And now I can’t have a baby. It’s not right.”
Here’s what Natalie Evans said:
“ I am distraught. It’s very hard for me to accept that the embryos will now be destroyed and I will never become a mother…”
How sad. But who’s fault that you refused to take no for an answer?
Evans had argued that Mr Johnston initially gave consent to the creation, storage and use of the embryos and should not be able to withdraw it.
Think about what that means…
Earth to Natalie. Get. Over. It. No means No. Move on. I’m sure you’ll live. If you really want a child that much then adoption is an option. Think of it – you might make a child really happy.. and hey, it might make you think of someone other than yourself!
As for the some of the fuckwitted comments in the article such as…
“she’s asked Mr Johnston for nothing” Pardon? Nothing?? His genetic material is “nothing?” Is her genetic material “nothing” as well?
And her solicitor:
“Natalie has fought courageously and with great dignity for the chance to bring a child into the world. She had asked for nothing from Mr Johnston…
There were of course many comments on this article in The Times, but here are a couple that I think sum it up nicely.
So much for any rights for the sperm machine. Women want the right to terminate a pregnancy, even if they initially wanted it, without any consideration for the father. Now they also want reverse rights, to have the child, without any dissent from the father allowed. I disagree with the destruction of human embryos, but women today consider equality of the sexes as having everything done their way.
Walter, Ohio, U.S.A
Oh, please. Mr. Johnson has a right to NOT use his sperm/DNA/embryos as he sees fit. He froze them while in a relationship, with that in mind. He doesn’t want a child with her, so he shouldn’t have to have one, regardless of whether he is with her or not. If a woman were forced to “have a child somewhere out there” everyone would throw a fit. I am a woman, and I say hooray for men’s rights! Plenty of women can’t have kids, and they adopt. It’s cold, but it’s life–get over it. Maybe he said no because he DOES care about his future kids and who mothers them. What if this woman became ill again? Maybe this guy doesn’t want to have to deal with all the “what if’s”. Maybe he’s moved on. Doesn’t matter, her illness/barren womb is not his problem, they’re not married. What about HIS future? Sorry, girls, turnabout is fair play. Equal right means just that-EQUAL.
Kim, USA
PS- Mr. Johnson- you are not a “horrible” or “unpleasant” man, just because you stand up for yourself.”
Comments?
Thanks to Kath and Timethief for the link – yes, you guessed right, I had seen the story.
Related post: Woman Loses Frozen Embryo Fight
Technorati Tags: Natalie Evans, consent
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
As a gorilla, I feel sorry for any female who cannot give birth. But she only has herself to blame for leaving it too late. It’s about time they defrosted that embryo and flushed it down the toilet.
excuse me, gorilla, you feel sorry for any women who cannot give birth, is that all a woman is, a breeding machine. are you “sorry” a man who can give birth. what this woman did was take the man out of the family, which is one of the points that make a lot of us childfree rant.
there are no male figures in these childrens lives, and see what has happened kids running wild. kids having kids. just because a person “cant ” have a child doesnt mean there are other options for her, but she wants her precious DNA replicant, and forget the rights of the man, thats what it was all about, the rights of a man being or not being a father.
doesnt a man deserve the right to decide if he wants to be a father, if he does ok, if he doesnt, then the woman should sign a legally enforcable document saying she will never claim anything at all from him.
i am not saying give the right to choose abortion to a man as well, but there are ways around it, i am talking about fatherhood, not genetic parentage.
if she had won, then men would be relegated to just blobs of protoplasm, only useful for one duty, create sperm. and thats just as bad a when a women is considered to be just an incubator
Your interpretation of Natalie Evans’s words is hilarious and spot on! I am again struck by the whole “selfish” notion. Her complete disregard for Mr. Johnson’s desire was selfish. He certainly has every right to decide when, if and with whom he has children. As the comment from Kim, USA so eloquently states, her problems are not his problems.
I believe it boils down to a very basic entitlement mindset that says we’re entitled to whatever we want. This is a very childish view. We certainly have the right to want whatever we want but that doesn’t mean we’ll get it. I want to be several inches taller but as a full-grown adult, that’s not going to happen. This is reality.
The Rolling Stones summed it up quite nicely: “you can’t always get what you want.” It’s a lesson everyone needs to learn sometime.
I think, if women want to be respected equally and not be forced to breed against their will, they also need to respect and enforce the same right for men. She can absolutely adopt to be a mother, and I think it’s high time our generation and those beyond or behind it take those Rolling Stone lyrics to heart.
exactly, but the world today is more pro woman (read pro child, pro motherhood), which does a disservice to men, i know some men who are great fathers, but they wanted to be a father, the ones who generally dont want to be fathers are very bad. its all about equality.
i am a semi active member of mens rights groups, i dont agree with all they say but a lot of it is true, when a woman forces, pressures, pokes holes in condoms, uses turkey basters, which has all been documented, then if he wore a condom that implies he didnt want to be a father, should he then pay for being a father if the pregnancy was caused by nefarious means, if she had to have a child, she says she doesnt want any money, but i am sure she would be claiming child support for it.
would it be right for her to force a man into being a father, imagine the outcry if the man forced her to be a mother.