CBC: Mother can have dead son's sperm harvested, Texas judge rules

[tuvor]

A Texas judge has granted a mother's request to have sperm harvested from her dead son's body, so she can fulfill his wish of having children.

"I want him to live on. I want to keep a piece of him," Marissa Evans told the Austin American-Statesman newspaper.

Her son Nikolas Colton Evans, 21, died Sunday in hospital after being punched and falling outside an Austin bar on March 27. No arrests have been made in his death.

He had already picked out the names of the three sons he wanted to have some day: Hunter, Tod and Van, said his mother, who had given permission for organs and other tissues to be harvested from his body.

...

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/04/08/texas-sperm-mom008.html

[ddeclue]

1. How is that HER choice?

If he wanted to have kids that WAS his choice.. Now he's dead.

And WHO is gonna have this dead guys kid?

:crazy:

What the hell goes on in Canada?

:crazy:

[varkam]

4. Maybe it was his choice but he didn't get a chance to exercise it.

He was pretty young, after all.

[ddeclue]

7. He's dead.. this is just SO wrong..

and creepy..

[varkam]

15. Why is it wrong? eom

[KittyWampus]

25. Because this is literally raping a dead body for sperm. Would you be supportive if it was a comatose

person?

[Oregone]

35. I would care just as little...

And what if that comatose person was brain dead and expressed their will to be taken off life support to their loved ones prior an accident? Shouldn't we trust their loved ones to make the correct choice for them?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

45. You're missing the point -

this is a great chance for LIBERALS to become the pitchfork-carrying protestors outside Terri Schiavo's hospital room. The survivor wanting to carry out what she said, under oath, was her son's wish, matters not at all to them, just as Michael Schiavo didn't matter to the ugly ones with the signs and the prayers who had absolutely no dog in that race.

:sarcasm:

Here, what I'm finding horrifying is how the LIBERALS have decided that the mother's intent is to impregnate herself with her son's sperm, even though there's no indication of that in the news report, and no judge in the world would ever grant a wish with that sort of intent. Their rabid imaginations can only go as far as the mother's womb - they can't imagine a girlfriend who was in love with the boy and who wants to have his children, or the mother finding an ideal surrogate to be the birth mother of her son's children.

LIBERALS....................

[varkam]

47. Yes - if it were that person's wishes to have children...

and that person was never going to recover. I'd be fine with it.

[Toucano]

75. But they aren't HAVING the children.

They are dead or in a coma.

Nobody gets all their wishes fulfilled in life. If circumstances prevented them from having children when they were alive, that's life.

[Heidi]

87. Even dead, he'd be a better parent than some I've known,

including my own biological father. _THAT's_ life, too.

[varkam]

90. That all depends on what your definition of have is.

And it doesn't follow that, since nobody gets all their wishes filled, we shouldn't fill those wishes that we can.

[enigmatic]

8. Read the article

It happened in Texas.

[MADem]

12. It's not Canada, it's TEXAS. And she has control over the body as Primary Next of Kin. nt

[ddeclue]

18. SO??? It's still not right..

[MADem]

29. Look, as I said elsewhere in this thread, I think it's sick, but it didn't happen in CANADA,

it happened in TEXAS--a judge ruled on it, and the mother DOES have control over the body. Those are the only points I made.

I didn't say in that post that "Oh, it's just so RIGHT" I simply posted the information that was available in the link.

[verdalaven]

86. My response here is the same I use with people who are anti-choice

If you find it morally reprehensible, don't do it. If you have a loved one in the same situation (may whatever God you believe in spare you that pain) then don't harvest his sperm.

Really, when are we going to stop projecting our own personal morality onto strangers?

[EmilyAnne]

77. This is in Texas. nt

[Politicub]

2. Wow - brave new world

I feel for the mom, though. She must be filled with grief.

[Deja Q]

3. That's nuts.

Talk about opening a can of worms.

[MrCoffee]

13. Oh I hope that pun was intended!

:spray:

[BurtWorm]

39. It takes balls to make a pun like that.

[LeftinOH]

5. That lady needs to get in touch with Octomom...she needs the money.

[Vanje]

76. They only have 3 names picked out nt

[Frustratedlady]

6. Well, I know I'm dense at times, but how does a dead man's sperm

fertilize an egg? Just askin'.

[Vanje]

79. We collected semen from a deceased goat.

Really. Not kidding.

I work in a veterinary facility.
A valuable buck goat had died. So that the dearly departed goat would not take all of its rare and splendid genetics with him to the goat heaven, its owner asked us to collect and freeze the semen.

It is NOT complicated.
I will not go into the exact process, but its pretty simple.

[Frustratedlady]

94. Still active? That's creepy.

If not, I hope no one had to resuscitate. Just sayin'.

[bunnies]

9. That is seriously fucked up.

She needs to not be so damned selfish and think of the poor kid having to go through life explaining how he or she has a nana-mommy. Geezus. And here I thought keeping hair was creepy. :scared:

[Warren DeMontague]

10. I'm not sure why this is anyone else's business, actually.

Does this directly impact me? No. If it's really his wishes, it's between him and his family and his doctor.

[enlightenment]

22. That's one way of looking at it.

Of course, no one knows what his wishes really were - unless he was a remarkably prescient 21 year old and wrote a will or some other document indicating that he wanted his sperm harvested to create the sons he one day hoped to have.

Without that, it could just be his mom reacting to his loss and inventing a plausible scenario for 'keeping him alive'. If that's the case, it may not impact you directly, but because it was a court ruling, it has established an uncomfortable precedent that impacts more than just his family. Families grieve, but that doesn't mean they should be given a legal pass to do something that may have been completely antithetical to the wishes of their dead loved one.

[Warren DeMontague]

33. And that's another way of looking at it.

And an entirely different way of looking at it is to ponder why we, as people who've never met the family in question, even consider it remotely our business. I'm going to assume that there was at least some evidence that this was his wish. Just as I accepted that Terri Schaivo expressed a wish not to be kept alive on machines, even though she never put it into writing.

Beyond that, I would trust his next of kin to make the call more than I trust total strangers.

[enlightenment]

38. And you're perfectly free to feel that way.

I don't put this situation and the Schaivo situation in the same category - but that's the way I feel about it!

[Toucano]

73. It's a public policy issue.

Isn't that obvious?

As our society evolves and new technologies are presented, they raise substantial questions that need to be addressed.

The reproductivity of Mr. Evans would be his business if he weren't dead.

Since he is, and since we have a technological capacity to harvest his sperm, we have to decide if that is the right of the next of kin, in this case, the mother.

Ask me if I want to have children and I might say, "Sure, someday." Ask me if I want my MOTHER to withdraw the frozen sperm from my cold, dead body and fertilize and incubate eggs to produce children I will never father, never see, and never know and the answer will be "Hell NO!"

Do the dead suddenly get granted wish fulfillment granted by the courts?

Do parents exercise reproductive control over their deceased children?

If my parent owns my sperm, can they sell it to the highest bidder?

This is not a private matter.

[MADem]

11. So how's she gonna do this? I think it's a bit .... sick.

Find a donor embryo and grow the things herself? Ewww.

It reminds me of that "Oedipus, leave mummy alone" cartoon.

Or find someone to be the incubator for her?

[kestrel91316]

31. Why does she need a "donor" egg, lol? This is TX. She will probably

just go ahead and inseminate herself. Or maybe snatch some pretty young thang off the street and inseminate her.

It boggles the mind. He's dead. She needs to bury him and move on.

[TexasObserver]

40. Why do you assume the worst?

Do you really think in utero fertilization is offensive?

Perhaps a woman who wants a child but not a husband will step forward and contact the mother.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

44. There's a nasty take

on a grieving mother's private business.

Sometimes this place sounds more like freeperville than I'd care to admit.

Here's hoping you never have to endure the sudden and tragic death of a child.................

[Tangerine LaBamba]

57. See - your comment here -

you took off on that fictional scenario.

"... and grow the things (sic) herself? Ewww."

Where on earth did you get that from the article? Why would you even speculate in that direction?

She's a mother who just lost a child. Your charity towards this woman is wanting.................

[MADem]

59. So SHE can fullfill his wish of having children--that's right in the article.

Read this quote--SHE wants a piece of him.

A Texas judge has granted a mother's request to have sperm harvested from her dead son's body, so she can fulfill his wish of having children.

"I want him to live on. I want to keep a piece of him," Marissa Evans told the Austin American-Statesman newspaper.




So SHE CAN FULFILL HIS WISH....that sounds like a bit of an "active role" to me.

"""""I""""" want him to live on....that sounds like she's involved.

""""""I"""""" want to KEEP A PIECE OF HIM.

The questions are appropriate. I'm surprised you would want to shut down discussion of this topic, frankly.

It has nothing to do with "charity." If you think this is "normal," you come from a very different place than most people.

If it were so common, it wouldn't have made the news, nor would the article have finished up with:

While the state gives parents control a child's body for organ and tissue donation, its use for sperm "is very unclear," said University of Texas law professor John Robertson.


See--VERY UNCLEAR. Most things that are "very unclear" are ripe topics for debate. People who debate have differing opinions. Because I think this mother's effort to save the sperm of a kid who died in a barfight is a bit odd, and yes, sick, that doesn't mean that I don't feel sad for her or ANY parent who loses a child. Your suggestion that the only way I can feel pity for this woman is to phonily agree that her halfassed, and to me, perverse, idea is a good one just doesn't pass the logic test. I can feel sorry for her and STILL think her idea is a sick one.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

62. I don't have any opinion on how you "feel," because,

of course, your emotions are your own, and of no interest to me. The notion that I'm trying ";. . . shut down discussion . . ." is off the wall. I've just stated my opinion and my observations that people have made assumptions that are nowhere in evidence.

Your vivid and literal interpretations of the mother's quotes are interesting. As I asked you in another response, would you also think that the mother's desire to keep "a piece of" her son might also mean that she'll be keeping a leg of his in the freezer or perhaps his heart in a jar of formaldehyde? You do know what the mother meant, but I think you're being fatuous with puffing this up to bolster a fictitious scenario of the mother being impregnated with her son's sperm.

I'd love to have a transcript of that hearing. I'd love to read the part where the mother states that she can't wait to bear her son's children.

That, you see, is what people are talking about here, and there is not a judge in the world who would grant that wish, nor would the dead boy's guardian ad litem allow that to happen, and the hospital certainly would not cooperate. There is not a fertility specialist in the world who would perform that procedure.

So, you see, if you want to take selective quotes and put an incredibly narrow interpretation on them and then, without any further data, go on to the mother's bearing her dead son's children, have at it. I'll just be here to point out the errors in your reasoning.

As for your odd comment that " ... your suggestion that the only way I can feel pity for this woman is to phonily (sic) agree that her halfassed, and to me, perverse, idea is a good one" comes right out of your ass, I fear. I don't know that any normal person wouldn't feel pity for that woman, and if your interpretative abilities so far demonstrated led you to conclude that that was what I wrote, you are incorrect. I am certain that you pity her.

I am also certain that your imagination has condemned her.

Further, I'd bet anything that she doesn't care what any of us think. I hope she gets what she wants and finds a way to be happy again.......................

[MADem]

67. You aren't reading what I wrote. I answered your question.

I said she didn't ASK the judge for a liver or a spleen...or a leg, for that matter. She asked for the sperm.

Also, I did a little digging. Look downthread.

The son did not authorize organ donation on his driver's license. The mother took that upon herself, as primary NOK. I find that disturbing, that, once you're dead, even if you check the "no" block, Momma can "override" your wishes.


She intends to find a surrogate mother to have the baby/babies for her.

She's having a hard time finding a urologist to do the procedure (I can't say as I blame them).

Stop with the loaded "condemned" language, and stop pretending you know what I am thinking or feeling. Why are you having such a "victim complex" on this woman's behalf, and beating up on me because I disagree with you? You continue to berate me, and use loaded language, like I'm hating on this woman and mocking her for having a dead kid, just because I think what she is doing is SICK.

I think the question "How long does the issue of "intent" carry forward?" is a valid one. This kid didn't want his organs harvested, as he noted on his driver's license--but who gives a shit what he wants, I guess. He said he wanted kids. He didn't say he wanted kids after he was dead, and I think it's a valid question to wonder how he'd feel about being "Dead Dad" and how his kids will feel about being the product of sperm from a deceased man who never knew they existed and did not participate in their creation.

That's as bad as some wingnut casting his dead wife's absentee ballot for McCain "Because that's what she would have wanted." Really--what's the difference? It's all "intent" after all, as stated by a Next of Kin?

I see ethical issues with this, to say nothing of psychological issues for those kids, if there are any successful swimmers in the lot.

Dead is dead. You need to get off my ass because I don't agree with you.

You are behaving badly.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

78. You're confusing me .........

I made it a point in my last post to you to state that I had no comment or interest in whatever you're feeling. Why could you not understand that? Your emotions are of no import here, at least not to me.

Your comments are so random and scattered that I don't really understand what you're trying to say. I do realize that I have somehow failed to make myself understood to you, which is unfortunate, because here we are now, two people not understanding each other.

It's not surprising, though, that the boy didn't check the organ donation box on his drivers' license. At that age, they're all ten feet tall and bulletproof. The concept of his death and his organs being donated would never even have penetrated his mind, or so my experience with kids that age tells me. Still, this isn't an organ, so that fact doesn't really apply here, as the court rightly noted.

You do seem, though, to think I have been somehow attacking you personally, and you're bending over in all sorts of gyrations to put a spin on my words that was never intended. I stated what I read, and what I thought of it, and you don't seem to like that I see things differently than you do. Consider the amount of time you've spent coming after me, and, although I find this kind of things entertaining, I don't see that you've done much except dig in with some sort of recalcitrant crouch, finding all kinds of perfectly fine excuses for why people would speculate on facts not in evidence.

That's all right. It's a message board. It's nothing but word exercises and entertainment.

However, I feel no need to characterize your "behavior." It is what it is, and none of it matters. Finding that I am "behaving badly" smacks of a Mother Superior who knows, deep down, that she's standing somewhere that's not very comfortable. When you've got nothing else, make a personal attack. If that works for you, that's good. I can take these cyberpunches. I'm so tough, and they're so - what's the word? - imaginary.

Someone's on someone's ass because he or she doesn't agree with someone, but trying to top from the bottom is just kind of sad.................

[MADem]

84. At that age, they're all ten feet tall and bulletproof. And apparently, their express wishes do not

matter after they are dead.

What if the kid joined a religion that eschewed autopsy and organ donation?

He made his decision...and it was overruled.

If his mother can't respect his decision, who's to say she's telling the truth about his three kids that he supposedly wanted?

My remarks are neither random nor scattered. They cut to the precise issues discussed in the OP and the subsequent links that I provided.

You, on the other hand, might want to look in your mirror.

You're behaving incredibly badly this evening. That's a "characterization" of your behavior.

:hi:

[TexasObserver]

14. Sounds good to me.

Every day thousands of children are born, and no thought whatsoever went into their conception and birth.

If she wants to see if someone will carry a child to term and produce a baby who is her son's, why should I oppose that?

[Sebastian Doyle]

16. Would it be inappropriate to quote Mick Jagger here?

What's the last line in "Start Me Up" again? :evilgrin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed36UQX8kXQ

[TwilightGardener]

17. Um...ew...

[Tangerine LaBamba]

19. This was posted earlier -

Some of the responses are interesting ................

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3821283

[CoffeeCat]

20. Creepy and sick!

Yeah, I picked out names for my kids too--when I was seven!

That doesn't mean I want my ovaries extracted out of my body--creating kids that I'll never see.

That's so hoarked up it's not even funny. This angers me.

What a violation!

[rampart]

21. darwin kinda missed this time

wrong on so many levels

[Tangerine LaBamba]

23. I am loving this ............

I'm getting a kick out of the twisted non-readers here who somehow have come up with the idea that the mother wants her son's sperm so that she can be impregnated with it.

Tells me a lot about the level of reading comprehension here. It's not good.

Do you folks honestly believe a judge would approve something like that? Or that a hospital would go along with it? That any fertility doctor would perform such a procedure? That the son's guardian would consent to something like that?

It's illegal, folks. And nowhere did the article state that.

You folks are gonna hurt yourselves leaping to unfounded conclusions. Plus, you've obviously been reading too many tabloids.

A woman is grief-stricken. If you've never been in a similar situation - and I hope you never are - you cannot even imagine how it is for her right now............

[KittyWampus]

28. Excuse me, but I read the article. Are you privy to a more in depth article? It says she wants his

sperm, wants to have his children and mentions the names her son had picked out.

And whether she personally wants to give birth or use a surrogate, the fact is she would be raping her son's dead body.

Unless you believe she just wants a test tube of sperm to put on the living room mantle?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

41. Again,

show me where it says the mother "wants to have his children."

It doesn't.

Interesting that your mind made up that salacious and twisted little fact, isn't it?

Do you honestly think a judge would grant such a request?

[MADem]

32. Well, I didn't "assume"--I ASKED the question. And this would not be the first time

a mother had her child's children.

A grandmother carried a baby to term for her daughter not too long ago, IIRC.

Yeah, here it is, and this isn't the first time this has happened, either: http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/CT-Grandmother-Carries-Baby-for-Daughter.html

Keegan says initially she and her husband were “weirded out” by the idea. But eventually they came around.

“We said OK, mom. We'll take your word for it. Let's go.”
Next, they had to convince Dr. Benadiva to go along with the idea of the grandmother carrying the baby.
"At first, I was surprised, shocked and a little bit skeptical," said Dr. Benadiva.
But after consulting his colleagues he realized it wasn’t a bad idea.
“We all agreed it did make sense medically,” he said.

Jan was fifty at the time but an avid runner and in excellent health.

Using in vitro fertilization doctors transferred two of Keegan's embryos inside her mother’s uterus.
On the same day, they also transferred two embryos inside Keegan.
Keegan will never forget the call from the doctor's office with the pregnancy test results.
"They were really blunt and she said, you're not pregnant but your mother is," Keegan said.
“It gave me more hope because she is a strong woman and has had seven so I thought this could be the one.”

From that point forward, this mother and daughter lived the journey of pregnancy through a grandmother.
“We were there at every ultra sound and it felt like natural, normal,” said Keegan.
“I knew it was their baby I never felt it was mine. There was a special connection with us. I believe we'll always have because of that,” said Jan.

Doctor Benadiva says three grandmothers have carried babies for their daughters at UCONN. All have been successful.



The weird thing is that the guy is DEAD. I really think the mother needs to come up with a video or a piece of paper that declares the guy's intent plainly....

[Tangerine LaBamba]

42. A mother - and even grandmothers -

have carried children for family members, but only as surrogates, never as egg donors.

Better read up on your terminology before you make such strange assumptions.

How come, if the court has no problem with granting this mother's wish, others, who have absolutely nothing to do with this tragic matter, are upset about it?

[MADem]

51. Who said anything about egg donors? Not me.

That post is almost entirely a quotation from a newspaper article.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

52. Yes, I brought up "egg donor,"

while you quoted an article that had nothing to do with the OP. Its meaning - and relevance - was lost here. A family member served as a surrogate for family members. The grandmother's eggs - where would they be? - were not used to conceive.

The OP was a quite different situation, as you'll see when you read the article linked there. Nowhere is there any mention of the mother carrying her dead son's child, as so many posters here have wrongly assumed.

It's a very sad and simple story, but people leaping to incorrect and rather weird conclusions that have no basis in reality have taken it down a very odd street, as your posting that story about a surrogate indicates..................................

[MADem]

53. I know all of that. In fact, if you look elsewhere in the thread, I ASKED the QUESTION.

I wondered what she was going to do with the sperm? I postulated two theories--get an egg and carry the things herself, or rent a surrogate.

I only posted the article because she wouldn't be the only grandma who carried her grandchild, IF (conditional) that was the way she decided to go. I did not aver at any time that this was her preferred methodology.

I read the OP article in its entirety before I posted.

One more time--I didn't SAY she was going to carry her dead kid's child--I """""ASKED""""""" THE QUESTION is all.

Go back and look at everything I've written in this thread. At no point am I making "conclusions that have no basis." All I am doing is QUESTIONING.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

55. That's not even at issue

The decision about what will be done with the sperm wasn't discussed in the article. I like to stay with the facts I have and not go wildly speculating about things that I don't know.

Remember when that guy in the press conference asked Obama why it took him two days to respond to something, and Obama said, "Because I like to know what I'm talking about before I say anything"?

Well, so do I. And nothing about what would be done with the sperm was in the article, so your two narrow examples are rather off-topic and fall into the field of fiction.

Did you consider that the boy was, perhaps, engaged to be married? Or living with a girlfriend who wanted his baby? Or any number of other possible scenarios?

The mother was his next-of-kin. She was petitioning the court for something that is legal and her petition was granted. Where all these posts here went was immensely entertaining, and told me a whole lot more about how minds work sometimes than about how poorly people can read.

So, what was your question?

[MADem]

58. What, no one can ASK THE QUESTION about what she'll do with the sperm?

Come on, that's just silly. That very question is what arises after reading the article, unless you're being deliberately uncurious.

See, you're doing it, too. You're "asking the question." You're postulating an alternative scenario, and dreaming up a girlfriend or a fiancee, but you, too, are postulating, nonetheless.

Come on--it's LOGICAL to wonder what her plans are.

Someone said they doubted she was going to stick the stuff on the mantlepiece for auld lang syne, and given that the mother SAID that the kid wanted kids and even had names for them...well, you have to wonder how the hell she plans on achieving what she claims was her son's goal.

You don't have to like the questions, but there's no call to get pissed off at people for doing what comes naturally--WONDERING what her plans are for the sperm, if it's even viable at this stage.

Look upthread. I postulated my questions in post eleven, I believe.

I think she needs to cough up some sort of documentation before they give her the sperm, myself--some sort of "active declaration." Otherwise, it is my OPINION (and we all have opinions) that her conduct is a bit bizzarre, and is a consequence of grief. She may want to regrow her kid, and in my OPINION, I think that's a sketchy proposition. That'll be a trick explaining THAT to the kids when they get older.

Finally, for the people who wondered about the HOW of it all, the mother's own words make one wonder how she plans on doing this--there's nothing about another party in these quotes from the mother:

A Texas judge has granted a mother's request to have sperm harvested from her dead son's body, so she can fulfill his wish of having children.

"I want him to live on. I want to keep a piece of him," Marissa Evans told the Austin American-Statesman newspaper.

Nothing there about a fiancee or girlfriend--"I" want to keep a piece of him, she said...

The questions are fair. The verbiage of the story does indeed raise more questions.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

61. Of course there are questions -

but I like to stay with facts, and watching the wild, groundless speculation here - and, yes, it's a very common quality - was both entertaining and troubling.

Entertaining for the obvious reasons, because it's always fun to watch people flying up their own wazoos for no reason at all.

But, troubling, and seriously, because people were drawing conclusions on the basis of no information and using those false bases as a reason to condemn the grieving mother. That is a kind of meanness that I find very disturbing. It's one thing to object to someone's behavior - even if you have no dog in the race - if you have all the facts, but I find it awful to see people do that with absolutely no basis in reality.

Yes, she said, "I want to keep a piece of him." If you want to take that literally, as you obviously do, one could also assume that she'd be lobbing off one of his limbs, or perhaps his heart or spleen or liver, to keep, as well. Being that literal can get you in trouble.

I am entertained by the musings here, but, mostly, I'm dismayed by how people take off on someone in a situation that has absolutely no effect on them. It's Terri Schiavo all over again, as was pointed out earlier, and this time, some of the good folks of DU are on a side that is quite surprising.

For me, I'll just stay with the facts and hope that none of the people here who condemned the woman without knowing much about her plight or her plans never have to endure the loss of a child. It's the worst horror in the world, and there are special rules for people who suffer such an obscene loss, because it is a devastation that creates a new reality for the rest of your life and you can only hope and pray that such pain will never again be visited on anyone, even your enemies..............................

[MADem]

63. I stayed with facts. But those facts INVITE questions.

Come on--you're being argumentative, and I have no idea why. The woman's very words DO invite questions.

She didn't petition the judge to keep his spleen or liver, so why even bring those items up--she asked to keep his sperm, and said SHE (yes, she) wanted to fulfill his dream.

You can "just stay with the facts" all you'd want. But criticizing others for reacting to what the woman herself has said, and this VERY ODDBALL/UNUSUAL court ruling, first of its kind in TX, anyway, to me seems to be carping for carping's sake.

It's NOT Terri Schiavo, though. No one wanted to harvest a few eggs from the brain dead body of Miss Schiavo. We're not talking about turning off a ventilator, or starving a nonresponsive, brain dead patient. This guy is already in the morgue, he's already dead, being held at thirty nine point two degrees F, so that the sperm in his dead body stays viable.

There's nothing MEAN about asking questions about this matter. It is not usual. It is not normal. It's a TX "first" actually.

And it has nothing to do with "being mean to grieving mothers," either. Your trying to make that connection is well, horseshit. What this woman is doing is ODD. It is not the norm. And saying so isn't inappropriate.


So, to sum up:

--This is an oddball situation, even if you don't want to admit that. I think it's a bit sick, and that's an opinion I have a right to hold. You are not required to agree with me.

--Saying it is an oddball situation, and wondering about what the woman plans on doing with the sperm, is NOT an assault on grieving parents who have lost children.

Sorry if you don't see it that way, but there's always hide thread.

Edit/spelling

[Tangerine LaBamba]

64. I don't think it's all that oddball -

after all, the technology was developed almost thirty years ago. I know this, because I represented a wife who wanted to harvest her brain-dead husband's sperm in one of the first cases. And that was in Virginia, also a very conservative state - much more so back then. I think it was 1981, or thereabouts.

These cases just don't get all that much publicity, and that's why it seems so unusual to people unfamiliar with the circumstances.

What I found interesting - and I guess I've failed to make myself understood, which is all my own fault and failing, but I tried to be as clear as I could - was that people made assumptions that were nowhere in evidence. The article contained nothing about the methodology that the mother intended to employ, and I was intrigued that people took the weirdest gloss - that the mother would have herself impregnated with her son's sperm, a legal impossibility - and went with it. That short article was simply a quick summary of the facts that led to the hearing and the judge's ruling. Not much substance, which is as it should be.

Argumentative? No. Defending my opinion? Yes.

Some of the comments were far more than "wondering about what the woman plans on doing with the sperm." They were mean. And that surprised me.

So, we come from different places on this matter. You find my questioning offensive, and I am just dismayed at the level of vitriol in some of the posts that were aimed at a woman who probably didn't even want the publicity. So many of these hearings, at least the ones I've known of, were always closed, the records sealed, for obvious reasons.

As I said, the judge did the right thing, as far as I'm concerned, applying the law properly, and I hope the woman's plans work out for her. Everyone who's lost a loved one always looks upon his or her surviving children as "small pieces of him" or her, and that is also just human nature.

[MADem]

69. Look, I never got "declarative" about the woman's methodology

I SPECULATED. I offered a couple of options not a single one of which included HER eggs. I never AVERRED.

I did find out that she wants to go the surrogate route, but she is having trouble finding a urologist willing to touch the extraction with a forty foot pole. That's probably because, in TX, anyway, the law is so "unclear."

It's not mean for me to think this is sick. This grandma needs to grieve, say goodbye to her kid, and not bring one, two or three fatherless kids into the world, who will end up at the shrink when they find out how they were put together.

When they 'do the Google,' they'll also find out that Daddy didn't want his organs donated, either.

I don't find your QUESTIONING offensive, I find your characterization of me and others who had the "noive" to ask questions offensive. You are, whether you realize it or not, behaving as though anyone who asks questions, or who thinks what this woman is trying to do is a SHITTY idea, somehow wishes her ill or disparages her grieving.

I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I can say "Gee, how sad that this woman lost her son" and "Gee, I think trying to get sperm out of a dead son who didn't want his organs donated to create little replicas of the kid is SICK." I think she needs to go through the five stages of grief, and move on. But that's not up to me. I do think it would be a better thing if none of the dead kid's swimmers survived.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

80. All those first person singular pronouns

say it all. You've made it personal, when it was nothing but a dispassionate exercise.

Others have expressed the same opinion as mine. I wonder why you're not challenging them. Or attacking them.

It's just astonishing that anyone would have an opinion about a mother who lost her son and pronounce what the woman should do. Ah, if only all that control could exist in reality.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

[MADem]

83. You are wrong, from first word to last.

And you have a lot of moxie telling people whether or not their opinions pass muster...on a discussion board.

[KittyWampus]

24. IMO, the mother is literally raping her son's body. Procreation is an act of individual Will.

The son is dead and has no capacity to exercise his own Will here.

Taking her son's sperm is exactly the same as taking any other UNWILLING person's sperm.

Sperm is NOT an embryo, fetus or child. So there is no consideration for the sperm itself as having any rights.

Unless the son wrote down clearly that he wanted his mother to harvest the sperm and implant it and then raise his children, she is clearly taking advantage of what is left of his physical remains.

There is no difference between raping a comatose person to impregnate them or to get their sperm than there is a dead person.

[leftynyc]

26. This sounds like a Greek

myth gone horribly awry. Very creepy.

[redqueen]

27. The waist on that pinup in your sig pic is freakishly small.

[Liberal_in_LA]

56. it is.

[ComtesseDeSpair]

30. That woman needs therapy...

Don't we have enough babies in this world anyway? Sick.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. I don't know about babies, but the world sure has a shitload of self-righteous people

anxious to finger-wag at total strangers about how to live their lives. :shrug:

[Tangerine LaBamba]

43. And,

they're LIBERALS!!!!

:hi:

[TorchTheWitch]

70. This isn't about her

It's about the resulting child or children. She wants his sperm for the entirely wrong reasons... not to fulfill his wish of being a father (he's dead so he can't be a father), she wants her son back and will be disappointed when the resulting child or children aren't him. That's a hell of a burden to place on the child or children produced by his sperm. I'm sure this guy had no intention of having kids he would never be a father to or even know about so his mother could pretend they were him and raise them as her own. She is in terrible grief and only thinking of her own loss. It's the court that needed to understand that and consider the grave consequences to any children produced. This isn't about his body parts, this is about a human being or human beings that will result in what she wants done... it's abut THEM. SHe wants her son's sperm to produce children that are not going to fulfill her fantasy that they will be him. She is only doing this as an attempt to get him back, and that is WRONG, and the children or children produced will have to be the ones to carry that terrible burden.

[MADem]

85. Very well said. nt

[TorchTheWitch]

88. Thanks - I'm astonished that the court agreed to this

The judge was not thinking of the child or children that would be the result of this decision, and THAT is more important than anything else. Thankfully, so far the urologists who were asked to do the procedure DID think of it, and there's no doubt in my mind it has everything to do with why they refused... it's wrong on every level.

I'm also really pissed off that she apparently allowed some of his organs to be donated when his driver's license stated he didn't want to be an organ donor. I have no idea how his documented wishes were overridden, and I'm curious if this judge had anything to do with that as well.

[MADem]

91. I found that egregious, too.

I mean, really--how far does "intent" carry on after a person is dead? And how much should some judge "buy off" on Momma's assertions, when the kid told the DMV the exact opposite?

I provided an example elsewhere of some hypothetical dead woman "intending" to vote for McCain and dying before her ballot arrives, so her husband fills out her ballot and mails it in, even though the woman is dead. Now, we'd call that election fraud, not "carrying out her last wishes."

The whole thing is just wrong on so many levels. I think the mother needs to cycle through the five stages of grief and move the hell on. She's not going to recreate the kid, and if she gets any kid at all out of this mess, that kid will be very screwed up, indeed.

[TexasObserver]

49. Thank you, Senator Frist, for your diagnosis.

And you didn't even need a video!


Don't we have enough armchair shrinks in the world anyway?

[Fleshdancer]

36. She's still deeply mourning her son and can't let go

I'm not about to judge the mindset of a woman who recently lost her child since I'm pretty sure I would go crazy in her situation. The courts need to be more responsible than this though. Once the sperm is harvested, then what? It would be extremely unethical to bring a child into this world in an attempt to replace his or her biological father. What an incredibly horrible burden to place on a child.

[SoCalDem]

37. One word..

eew!

[Tikki]

46. Wow....I thought kids were suppose to have a dad....

Will this woman let another man be the father to her grandchild...I don't know.

Tikki

ps...plus how many little swimmers do you need to make sure you get a Hunter, a Tod and a Van out of it all!!!

[EFerrari]

48. That must have been difficult for her. Someday maybe this lady

will have helped an infertile couple to have the children they want. Good for her.

[Mari333]

50. judge not lest ye be judged accordingly. nt

[proud patriot]

54. so sperm lives after death?

Live after Death was a great Iron Maiden album. :headbang:

[MADem]

60. For a day, apparently. They have to freeze the corpse to keep it viable.

To four degrees centigrade--which is actually a bit above freezing. 39.2 F....

[Vanje]

81. It has to be frozen nt

[MADem]

65. Well, I did a little looking, and I found out what she's gonna do with the goods

I also found out that the kid DID NOT AUTHORIZE donation of his organs on his driver's license.

And further, that urologists aren't enthused about gathering the samples, either.




Marissa Evans, 42, said she plans to use the sperm to have a grandchild through a surrogate mother. She said her son had planned to have three children, who would be named Hunter, Tod and Van.

"I want him to live on," Evans was quoted by the newspaper as saying. "I want to keep a piece of him."

Evans said she sued after hospital officials and representatives from an organ donation agency refused to
extract her son's sperm.


http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/08/Dead-sons-sperm-to-be-removed/UPI-34071239233298/


According to 21-year-old Nikolas Evans' driver's license, he did not give permission for his organs to be donated after his death. But his mother gave them up so that others may live on.

Now she wants the same - to keep Nikolas' memory alive through his sperm.

"I asked them if there was a way to harvest my son's sperm so that at some point I may be able to have a grandchild," said Nikolas' mother, Marissa Evans.

"He wanted three boys. He talked about it a lot, and i want to try to make that happen if I can," Evans said.

Modern medicine may be the only saving grace for the mother who lost her son April 5. But what she doesn't have is someone who will harvest her son's sperm.

"Obviously we got the orders from the judge and it was beautiful, but now we're having a problem finding a urologist that wants to do the sample," Evans said.

Evans says time is running out and soon her son's sperm will no longer be usable. She knows time can't be reversed.

"I would love to have a piece of my son that lives on with me forever," she said.

http://www.keyetv.com/mostpopular/story/Austin-mother-wants-to-save-her-murdered-sons/ue5eas7QNUu4kmFDHANkfw.cspx



I find it bothersome that the living Next of Kin can "override" an "I don't want to donate my body" check on the driver's license.

[Toucano]

74. At the risk of appearing insensitive

It seems like someone forgot to cut the cord on that one.

[cherish44]

66. What if the babies conceived with his sperm are girls?

Won't that ruin the whole fantasy?

[TorchTheWitch]

72. Doesn't matter - the fantasy will be ruined anyway

when she finally figures out that the child or children produced aren't going to be her son.

I hope no willing doctor is found that is willing to do this... the burden placed on any resulting children is grievious.

[stubtoe]

93. That's the big issue here, the burden on any resulting children.

You really hit the nail on the head here. The expectations on any kid(s) would be terribly unfair.

[Toucano]

68. On an overpopulated planet with people starving, someone wants to harvest SPERM?

I disagree with the judge and the mother.

This is not like organ donation in which a person can't make a donation until they no longer need the organs.

The young Mr. Evans was old enough to make such a provision had he wished to do so. As he did not, his sperm goes with him. It does not belong to his mother!

Ms. Evans will not be "fulfilling his wish of having children..." because HE IS DEAD. His wish to be a father died with him.

This is just not right on any level.

[Vickers]

71. People in pain do some odd shit.

I hope she finds some kind of solace, whatever transpires.

[TorchTheWitch]

89. And that's exactly why it shouldn't have been approved

Her desire to do this has everything to do with her own grief and she is attempting only to fulfill her own deluded fantasy of getting her son back... she SAID so herself. The court should have recognized that this was a desperate request of a woman in such pain she was not thinking clearly. And the court's biggest concern should have been the burden this would inevitably place on any resulting child or children as it is them that will suffer the consequences. This isn't about her son's body parts, it's about the resulting child or children.

[tomm2thumbs]

82. Would this apply to an 11 year old who dies?

Where does the line get drawn? If puberty hits, you are fair game for harvesting? Seems like a bad precedent to me.

What if the son or daughter is a priest and did not want children, but the parent did, and they technically override the wishes of the departed person by lying about their intentions.

What if the son left everything in their estate to another person, but now an heir is created, who takes legal precedence, overriding the deceased. There are endless odd possibilities that are ripe for the picking. (no pun intended)

Can a parent demand the sperm of someone who is put to death by lethal injection by the State?

What if a girl dies during a rape? Can a right-winger parent demand the fertilized egg be removed & brought to term?


They say REST IN PEACE for a reason.

[MADem]

92. Good points, every one. nt