Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Cancer patient Ruby Torres must donate embryos fertilized by her ex-husband, court rules (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter parasaurolophus
- Start date
timschochet
Footballguy
Interesting. Doesn't sound like this will be the end of it. This seems like the type of case that the SC would entertain.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
I support the right of the father to have a say in what happens to his offspring.
However, the mother should not be forced to donate the embryos to anyone. If the father can prevent the embryo from being implanted into Person X, then the mother should be given an equal right to prevent the embryo from being implanted into Person Y or anyone else.
However, the mother should not be forced to donate the embryos to anyone. If the father can prevent the embryo from being implanted into Person X, then the mother should be given an equal right to prevent the embryo from being implanted into Person Y or anyone else.
badmojo1006
Footballguy
Lutherman2112
Footballguy
NYPost: "At the fertility clinic, the couple signed an agreement outlining what would happen if they decide to break up. The embryos could either be donated to another couple, or one partner would be permitted to use them — with the other’s permission, according to the ruling."
ABC News Phoenix: "In the agreement signed by both parties, there were three alternatives the couple could seek if they separated, divorced, or one of the them died: They could discard the embryos, donate the embryos to another couple, allow one partner to use the embryos with the other's permission."
I wonder why the discrepancy with the Post regarding the couple's fertility agreement?
ABC News Phoenix: "In the agreement signed by both parties, there were three alternatives the couple could seek if they separated, divorced, or one of the them died: They could discard the embryos, donate the embryos to another couple, allow one partner to use the embryos with the other's permission."
I wonder why the discrepancy with the Post regarding the couple's fertility agreement?
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
My understanding is a previous court ruled that they could not be disposed of due to a paragraph in the contract. So that left just the two options.
ETA: My guess is that she would consent to having them destroyed once she had exhausted all legal challenges, but won't until then. The two parties are able to amend the original agreement, which from what I can tell they forgot to check the box that said in the event of divorce the embryos can be destroyed.
Last edited by a moderator:
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
I find this case to be fascinating. So many different viewpoints. Just from quick twitter readings some things people are discussing...
1. Rights of a father
2. Sympathy for a cancer patient.
3. Contract law
4. Pro-life viewpoint
5. Women's rights
1. Rights of a father
2. Sympathy for a cancer patient.
3. Contract law
4. Pro-life viewpoint
5. Women's rights
E Street Brat
Footballguy
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I guess maybe she should have saved a few eggs as opposed to only embryos.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Do the embryos have to be donated to someone that will implant it? Can't she just "donate" it to someone that will throw them in the trash?
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Summer
Footballguy
Couldn't she just donate the embryos to herself?
(or just donate them to a surrogate who would then give the baby to her?)
(or just donate them to a surrogate who would then give the baby to her?)
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
It requires contemporaneous approval from both parties. So i guess if she was able to find a person that he would agree to give them to and would then carry the baby and give back, sure?
The Commish
Footballguy
Im trying to understand how the contract DIDN'T cover this. We went through IVF and the contract was a freakin' book that covered things that had less than a 0.0000001% chance of happening. This seems like a glaring omission from the contract.
Zow
Footballguy
There's an applicable AZ statute as referenced in footnote 1. That law came out after this case began so it doesn't apply retroactively, but it's worth a read to see how Arizona resolves the issue.
Since that statute wasn't enacted at the time this situation arose, the court appears to have decided this matter totally on the merits of the contract issue. And bad contract = "bad" ruling.
Since that statute wasn't enacted at the time this situation arose, the court appears to have decided this matter totally on the merits of the contract issue. And bad contract = "bad" ruling.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
The contract did cover it. The woman didnt like what the contract said. It specifically states she needs his approval in the case of a divorce.
The Commish
Footballguy
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Legally i agree with you. Obviously on the human interest side, hard not to feel bad for her. That shouldnt override the legal side of it though.Thanks....then I fail to see the issue here...what am I missing?
Similar threads
