Whose body is it anyway?



The woman who was trying to force her former partner to legally release his medically stored sperm has failed in her high court bid. This was the only way she could have a child of her own and the inference has been throughout that the man is in the wrong, persecuting this poor woman by refusing his permission. But the truth is that she expects this man who she is no longer in a relationship with to be the father of his child with the attendant moral and legal responsibilities that go with this. As he is no longer withher he does not want this. She says this is a breach of her human rights. But what about the man's rights? If the situations were reversed woman's groups would be outraged over this case. After all one of the central tenents of the women's movement has been that a woman's body is hers alone. Woman's body, woman's choice on all reproductive matters. Personally I've always subscribed to this myself - no-one else (esepecially religious zealots) has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. But surely men must be accorded the same rights?



Today the courts agreed that without the consent of both of them this cannot go ahead. She may appeal and put everyone through even more of what is basically an attempt to legally hijack a part of the man's DNA. I'm not unsympathetic to the woman's plight and her natural desire to have a child, but this is not the way to do it. Even if she was successful, what on Earth would she tell this child when it grew up? If she cannot give birth to he won child there is always adoption, and lord knows there are a lot of kids out there waiting for a chance to have the lvoe and attention of a family, something most of us take almsot for granted most days. I know it's not the same as giving birth, but if she wants to have a family this is surely an option rather than pursuing this hurtful course?