Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Toledo Blade)   Not news: the IVF worked and you're pregnant. News: we put in the wrong embryo and the baby isn't yours. Fark: you have to give the baby back as soon as it's born   (toledoblade.com) divider line 157
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

15375 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Sep 2009 at 11:28 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



157 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-09-22 08:15:24 AM  
Yeah, they weren't forced to return the baby nor to even have it. They're doing both of their own accord. But who cares about facts, right? It's just a headline.
 
2009-09-22 08:21:39 AM  
Ender's: Yeah, they weren't forced to return the baby nor to even have it. They're doing both of their own accord. But who cares about facts, right? It's just a headline.

THIS

There is no possible jury in the world who would rule against 9 months of pregnancy and a vagina torn in two over a few knuckle children mixed with an egg from a syringe.

Bad subby.
 
2009-09-22 09:18:45 AM  
doglover: There is no possible jury in the world who would rule against 9 months of pregnancy and a vagina torn in two over a few knuckle children mixed with an egg from a syringe.

I don't know about that.

From a property standpoint, the sperm and egg belong to someone else. The court could take that perspective; it was never the carrier's property to begin with, so once born the baby is not hers.

The courts could also view the woman as nothing more than a surrogate... and surrogates have a hell of a time convincing courts to let them keep the babies they've carried no matter how attached they are or how much trouble the pregnancy and birth were. Granted, surrogates know from the beginning it is not theirs and they are not going to be able to keep it whereas this woman did not know from the start it was not hers.

The court could see it as an issue of answering "who are the parents?" Is it the unrelated receptacle that carried the baby to term and her spouse, or it's biological contributors? This could go either way, but in more conservative areas you bet your bottom dollar the "biological parents" are going to be deemed the "real" parents.

The court could also see it as a question of "well the mistake is made, so who will make the better parents?" as they are supposed to do in divorce (supposed to)... which could go either way and has nothing to do with either side's role in the baby's creation, but more to do with their affluence, etc.

And it's definitely not like she needs to carry to term anyway (misleading headline is misleading) - she could just abort. It is an incredibly charitable thing she's doing to carry a fetus to term when it has no right to be there and she has no real invested interest in the survival of fetus (at least no more than in any other complete stranger).
 
2009-09-22 09:24:33 AM  
So, she's a surrogate mom now? Cool. Surrogates get paid well. She's making money off her womb. She should also write a book and go on Oprah.
 
2009-09-22 09:31:04 AM  
Ender's: Yeah, they weren't forced to return the baby nor to even have it. They're doing both of their own accord. But who cares about facts, right? It's just a headline.
 
2009-09-22 09:36:58 AM  
Ender's: Yeah, they weren't forced to return the baby nor to even have it. They're doing both of their own accord. But who cares about facts, right? It's just a headline.

since when did fark ever require accurate headlines?
 
2009-09-22 09:45:49 AM  
ToEnder's: Yeah, they weren't forced to return the baby nor to even have it. They're doing both of their own accord. But who cares about facts, right? It's just a headline.

I don't know about Canadian law, but under US law, the surrogate (probably) would have to surrender custody to the biological parents.
 
2009-09-22 09:48:01 AM  
Ender's: Yeah, they weren't forced to return the baby nor to even have it. They're doing both of their own accord. But who cares about facts, right? It's just a headline.

yes, but that's just not as compelling - and truthiness is the rule of thumb today


bad subby
 
2009-09-22 09:52:41 AM  
ne2d: ToEnder's: Yeah, they weren't forced to return the baby nor to even have it. They're doing both of their own accord. But who cares about facts, right? It's just a headline.

I don't know about Canadian law, but under US law, the surrogate (probably) would have to surrender custody to the biological parents.


Oops, I read Toledo as Toronto.
 
2009-09-22 09:54:51 AM  
With the proceeds from the lawsuit they can adopt whole villages full of children.
 
2009-09-22 10:00:31 AM  
Well, at least they'll be rich now. That's going to be one HUGE lawsuit.
 
2009-09-22 10:00:34 AM  
I wonder if the other couple is black. That would make a great FAIL pic, a completely black baby coming out of a blonde woman while her white husband looks on.
 
2009-09-22 10:05:40 AM  
Demetrius: Well, at least they'll be rich now. That's going to be one HUGE lawsuit.

Cha-ching! Oh wait, what's this small print on page 37 of the contract? What does "binding arbitration" mean?
 
2009-09-22 10:18:54 AM  
So when the biological parents divorce, will the not really the father guy have to pay child support?
 
2009-09-22 10:40:42 AM  
Great Googly Moogly.
 
2009-09-22 11:07:15 AM  
GooberMcFly: I wonder if the other couple is black. That would make a great FAIL pic, a completely black baby coming out of a blonde woman while her white husband looks on.

Funny, but possibly NSFW. Gorgor?
 
2009-09-22 11:31:01 AM  
Shouldn't anti-birth control people be protesting IVF? After all, if God wanted you to have a baby, he wouldn't have given you such a wimpy womb.
 
2009-09-22 11:32:23 AM  
ne2d: ToEnder's: Yeah, they weren't forced to return the baby nor to even have it. They're doing both of their own accord. But who cares about facts, right? It's just a headline.

I don't know about Canadian law, but under US law, the surrogate (probably) would have to surrender custody to the biological parents.


Although when this comes up, there's a contract involved... This one wouldn't be contract law, however, since there was no agreement to be a surrogate.
 
2009-09-22 11:32:40 AM  
I am so angry that I cannot find any pics of the Sylvania light bulb man from the 80s commercials.

Anyone have better google-fu than I?
 
2009-09-22 11:33:58 AM  
lukelightning: Shouldn't anti-birth control people be protesting IVF? After all, if God wanted you to have a baby, he wouldn't have given you such a wimpy womb.

THIS

/although some of them do
//that is going to be one hefty lawsuit
 
2009-09-22 11:33:59 AM  
I submitted this exact article yesterday and redlit......

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2009-09-22 11:34:08 AM  
lukelightning: Shouldn't anti-birth control people be protesting IVF? After all, if God wanted you to have a baby, he wouldn't have given you such a wimpy womb.

Anyone that is still trying and paying money after having 3 kids is grade A stupid.
 
2009-09-22 11:34:19 AM  
lukelightning: Shouldn't anti-birth control people be protesting IVF? After all, if God wanted you to have a baby, he wouldn't have given you such a wimpy womb.

Hmm, never thought of that before...
 
2009-09-22 11:35:52 AM  
boluke01: I submitted this exact article yesterday and redlit......

Maybe you should insult the modmins more often
 
2009-09-22 11:36:08 AM  
MEDIA!

/But seriously, this is just horrible.
 
2009-09-22 11:36:40 AM  
GranoblasticMan

I actually brought that up in an argument during college in an religion class when we were discussing the abortion issue. The pro-lifers said it was irrelevant, and creating life where there wasn't is not the same as taking it.....figure the logic out in that one.
 
2009-09-22 11:37:00 AM  
Abort it. Obvious.
.
 
2009-09-22 11:37:09 AM  
If she aborts the fetus, can the lady be charged with anything? Destruction of property? In turn, can she sue the fetus for unlawful intrusion?

/My head hurts, and I only have a GED in law.
 
2009-09-22 11:37:54 AM  
Dr. Rosenrosen

LOL, I just saw that pic about 10 minutes ago and laughed my ass off. Had to find a reason to use it.

/Not like I get anything greenlit anyway, I'm not snarky funny
 
2009-09-22 11:38:33 AM  
FTA

"The Savages, already parents to three biological children.."

Why would you want to go through IVF if you already have 3 children? WTF is the desperation to have another one?

/hate IVF
 
2009-09-22 11:39:12 AM  
lukelightning: Shouldn't anti-birth control people be protesting IVF? After all, if God genetics wanted you to have a baby, he wouldn't have given you such a wimpy womb.

Every now and then, I find myself thinking that for the sake of the species, everyone should be opposed to any sort of fertility treatment. If your body won't support a life other than your own, maybe you shouldn't be contributing to the gene pool.
 
2009-09-22 11:39:18 AM  
video man: If she aborts the fetus, can the lady be charged with anything? Destruction of property?

I couldn't imagine so. She has no privity with the biological parents, so there's no breach of contract. Lacking any contract waiving her right to an abortion, there is nothing else that could prevent her. Her bodily autonomy trumps any sort of property right.

In turn, can she sue the fetus for unlawful intrusion?

Again, no. But she (and the biological parents) could sue the doctor and hospital for malpractice.
 
2009-09-22 11:40:11 AM  
chandler_vt

John and Kate syndrome?

2 kids + We want one more + IVF = 8 kids
 
2009-09-22 11:40:41 AM  
boluke01: I submitted this exact article yesterday and redlit......

Maybe you should have funnier headlines
 
2009-09-22 11:41:06 AM  
she better get paid the equivalent of what a surrogate gets paid, courtesy of the clinic that royally farked up.
 
2009-09-22 11:41:36 AM  
The Dot And The Line

Truth. But I try anyway, despite not being funny.
 
2009-09-22 11:41:50 AM  
ne2d: ToEnder's: Yeah, they weren't forced to return the baby nor to even have it. They're doing both of their own accord. But who cares about facts, right? It's just a headline.

I don't know about Canadian law, but under US law, the surrogate (probably) would have to surrender custody to the biological parents.


Meh. she should charge the biological parents $12.50/hr for child care services (based on a normal day care in my area being about $500/week and assuming that is for a 40-hr week). that adds up to $84,000 for 40 weeks' gestaion (since the child is there and must be cared for 24/7 until born. If the biological parents can't pay, then the surrogate mother keeps the kid as collateral until they can.
 
2009-09-22 11:41:50 AM  
img132.imageshack.us

"Government came and took my baby!"
 
2009-09-22 11:42:05 AM  
thehostess.files.wordpress.com

TFA: Happy news turns horrifying for Sylvania Township couple; embryo implanted by clinic is not their own

Sorry, my bad; sticky note to me, "rinse after using".

/would hit the mom like an IVF monkey
 
2009-09-22 11:42:11 AM  
I'd implant an embryo in her (if you know what I mean).

/actually, I mean that I'd be happy to use a turkey baster and a fertilized egg to try to get their child to implant in the wall of her uterus, because they seem like nice people...
 
2009-09-22 11:43:06 AM  
Now that's what i call a sticky situation.
 
2009-09-22 11:44:00 AM  
This is just all around farked up. I can't even think of as smart ass comment.
 
2009-09-22 11:44:09 AM  
lukelightning: Shouldn't anti-birth control people be protesting IVF? After all, if God wanted you to have a baby, he wouldn't have given you such a wimpy womb.

Well then, wouldn't God also block the IVF from working? You can run in circles forever with this particular argument. No, there's nothing morally wrong with IVF (though it's probably not something I'd personally do, considering there are plenty of kids out there waiting for adoption...), however fertilizing a bunch of extra eggs and then destroying the ones you don't want IS wrong.

In this particular instance, it should be the womb that determines who gets the child, not where the egg came from. The article doesn't say anything about mother 1 being forced to hand over the child to supposed mother 2, but I bet she suspects that would happen if it went to court. The courts always seem to favor biology over anything else.
 
2009-09-22 11:44:32 AM  
Oh Shiat!

"In the case of your baby, lady...You are NOT the mother..."

t1.gstatic.com
 
2009-09-22 11:44:54 AM  
well if they are "religious" then they can look on it as an act of god and stop complaining.
 
2009-09-22 11:44:58 AM  
I wonder if the baby will have a cause of action? I can get admitted to the Ohio Bar in the next 18 years.

I think the doctor is going to end up paying child support on this one. This would make a helluva tort class test question.
 
2009-09-22 11:46:08 AM  
Trollmitters suck. Must be a graduate of the Daily Kos School of Headline Writing.

/(expletive) modmins
 
2009-09-22 11:46:16 AM  
TFA: Mrs. Savage, 40, is due to give birth in two weeks via cesarean section, and said she and her husband are prepared to give the boy to his biological parents, whom they have met. During the meeting, the biological mother seemed "so grateful for what we had done."
"We're trying to look at it as a gift for another family that eight months ago we didn't know," she said.
Mrs. Savage said the mother agreed to let her have a moment with the baby "to say hello and good-bye" before handing him over.
"We know they did not ask for this. We are not going to press ourselves into their lives.
"Of course we will wonder about this child every day for the rest of our lives. We have hopes for him - but they're his parents," she said.
When contacted at her home Monday night, Mrs. Savage said she and her husband are working with a public relations firm. She declined to comment to The Blade Monday but said they are planning to talk with local media later this week.
Mr. Savage, a self-employed financial adviser, said their two older children, boys ages 15 and 12, are OK with what their parents are going through.
"We've tried to set a tone inside our house that is conducive to keeping this in the most positive way as a teaching moment for them: When you face a tough situation in life, how are you going to handle it?," Mr. Savage said.


These people restore my faith in humanity. I think I will not read Fark for the rest of the day so I can enjoy this feeling.
 
2009-09-22 11:48:09 AM  
Why is someone with 3 children allowed to have another via IVF? I have no sympathies for these people.

www.oliverwillis.com
 
2009-09-22 11:48:29 AM  
Ender's: Yeah, they weren't forced to return the baby nor to even have it. They're doing both of their own accord. But who cares about facts, right? It's just a headline.


If they hadn't decided to do just that, there would have been a huge court battle. Women have been sued by assholes who never even met them and had no stake in the matter to force the women to not have abortions, what makes you think this one wouldn't be at least as complicated if she'd decided to abort?
 
Displayed 50 of 157 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report