Motherhood: The battle for embryos

After a divorce, some women experienced painful conflicts with their partners over frozen embryos.

While I spent some time the last weekend discussing different topics about what is happening with Media, Technology, Arts and Surveillance was a relevant time to explain a variation of the influence from these elements in our society. Particularly, an interesting approach from the use of Ethics in a world changing in crazy ways as faster as you could imagine. Now, hackers are threatening Banks, Government, Security Agencies, Politicians, citizens, among other institutions and organizations.Every meeting was an exciting surprise for developing better ideas. When we find time for a break, I had the chance to talk about Ethics, Religion, and Technology with another student, who survived with a brightly attitude a meeting to discuss Gender issues, which represented an interesting approach toward gender equality, technology, and social interactions while considering the ethics of parenting. The topic appears after finding an article in the New York Times about a couple in California fighting over the future of the frozen embryos and what would be stipulated as legal or ethical for them confronting an overwhelming situation.

The story has begun with a Mimi Lee, 46, a pianist and part-time anesthesiologist, and Stephen Finley, unknown age, a wealthy executive married five years ago. However, the couple could not enjoy a particular time because she was diagnosed with breast cancer. She feared to lose the chance to have babies after battling the disease, so the couple decides to create five frozen embryos. Even when the story would have an excellent result, they won’t stay together. During the discussion of different issues in the divorce, the last one was the most difficult because Finley wanted to end the life of embryos. Meanwhile, Lee, infertile after the cancer treatment, wanted to use them. However, the judge decided finally to respect the agreement both signed expressing they would not keep the embryos in case of divorce.

There were previous cases where women with the similar disease and collateral effects could have the opportunity to become mothers. For example, Natalie Evans, 35, who lived in the United Kingdom  The topic let us reminded biblical stories as King Salomon’s decision about two women fighting over who was the real mother of the baby.  Undoubtedly, the decision was easiest at that time, asking both women who to share a half part of the child’s body, let the judge discovered who was the real interested individual in children’s welfare. I understand couples must have the decision over their financial, emotional and physical health. However, in this case, there was doubt about what was her real interest when she asked for money as his husband expressed in Court.

Perhaps, it is time to consider how this industry is making the access to technology provide citizens the opportunity of having children as something relevant rather than making it look like a pure product in the market. I know the possibility of identifying embryos just a group of cells from the human body without a second thought after the time passed by in the relation is logical. However, the value of life should appear as a more valuable aspect of humanity, especially, when these women had conquered one against death.It is quite impossible to consider the type of lost Mimi and Natalie had suffered. However, it is still a real question thinking about one of the members of the couples being able to support the life of a new human because she is not able to do it physically. My position is as more journalist expressed somber but it should not be considered the creation of a practical clause, which offered women, who would suffer similar situations in the future the opportunity to raise her children alone. Especially, if the father did not want to be part of it. It is comprehensible the position of Mrs. Evans, who said he will not want to know her son is growing up without him.

In consequence, it is quite impossible to consider the lost that Mimi and Natalie had suffered. Even though the real question for future mothers who want to be part of a similar process is why would we make disappear an embryo without giving a second thought about the fact that one of the members in the couple is still being able to support the life of the human. Particularly, when she is not able to do it again after cancer. My position is not thinking in a somber way but if the possibility to create a practical clause, which offered women, who will suffer similar situations as a mortal disease in the future, the opportunity to raise her children alone. Especially, if the father did not want to be part of it. Nonetheless, it is illogical to ignore Mr. Evans position, who said he will not want to know his son is growing up without him.

Published by


Journalist. Student of Global Media Communication. Interested in Politics, Economy, Social Media, Technology. Feminist. Like walking, talking and swimming.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s