What I didn't understand about the fight over the embryo was Deb's constant contention that this was the ONLY way she could have a child. (Also, that it was her sister's wish; but basically she kept saying this was her only chance.)
Are Australian medical IVF facilities unavailable to women who are 39/40? Is that the reason Deb says she can't have a baby any other way than using this existing embryo of her sister's?
I get why Deb was fighting for THIS embryo, but didn't understand failing to get it why another option was never available. Like her egg harvested and matched to her husband's sperm. Or donor egg and her husband's sperm.
In the end, too, it also discounted her husband's ability to father a child, instead using Janet's and Ash's sperm donor.
Then, at the appeal there was Don(?) the sperm donor who had quite firm feelings about the embryo being implanted in a way he had not donated for--yet in the appeal he was absent?
The men didn't come off too well here--one had his biological material used completely against his will after the sperm he donated was not going to be used in the way he agreed to. It was a bait and switch on him--even though he had given up parental rights. Somehow, I saw his point. They changed it up on him. He signed on to have these two women he liked and respected to raise his biological child. Not somebody else.
And then Deb's husband never got a shot either at being a biological father with all the focus on the embryo and never a good explanation as to why his sperm couldn't be used somehow for IVF?
The whole thing made my head spin, quite honestly. Ha.
reply
share