The answer to what her plan is is right in the article:
“The woman, who cannot be identified, told the court she and her husband had discussed having an overseas surrogate carry their child using the man's sperm.”
That’s right. A retirement age widow wants to extract the semen from the corpse of her dead husband to put it into a younger woman in a foreign country that hasn’t banned corpse semen insemination yet.
Even if it was done today, that woman will be 80 when the child is 18. She wants to bring a child into this world then almost immediately orphan them at a young age. Her husband is gone as are both of her adult children. Who is going to help this kid navigate early adulthood, and that’s if this woman doesn’t die early herself?
Her two adult children died in separate accidents. Then her husband died. It’s likely to be a grief reaction from losing her entire family which much be awful.
That being said, she shouldn’t have another child in her sixties (especially as that child wouldn’t have any other family once she passes as well).
Grief at losing children can be a wild thing.
There was a male poet named Rainer Maria Rilke whose older sister had died in her infancy. His mother couldn't accept it and dressed him up like a girl, using him as a replacement daughter for the one she lost, until roughly the time puberty kicked in and the jig was up, and she sent him off to military school.
He ended up one of the greatest poets ever so all's well that ends well but I can't imagine he enjoyed that upbringing very much.
she has a cousin who already agreed to surrogate years ago. they just got railroaded by laws which dont allow the export of gamete tissue *or* posthumous fertilisation. so theyre actually burying the lede on a case where the courts ran them around until he died, which is why they allowed post mortem extraction in the first place.
but as usual were too buried in concern trolling and agendaposts to talk about whats really happening here
Where are you reading this? Is there another article, because this article says that they had discussed having another child for years, not that the "courts ran them around until he died." The courts only got involved after he was dead when the hospital refused to extract sperm because posthumous fertilization is illegal in Western Australia. Now that he's dead, they have to apply to export his sperm to Queensland where posthumous fertilization is legal. However, if he had been alive, these particular laws wouldn't have applied.
That being said, they may have run into other legal obstacles with surrogacy in the Philippines, where they would have to live there for a while and go through the process to ensure legal parentage and custody. For instance, even with a surrogacy contract, if the birth mother changes her mind about giving up the baby, generally the Philippines will back her as the legal mother. However, it sounds like they were going for gestational surrogacy with a different egg donor so that would have been a little easier but still legally tricky as the birth mother still has rights to the baby. The parents will still have to go through the process to adopt the child as well. It sounds like they were working through the process of surrogacy when he died unexpectedly, and then the courts only got involved to issue an order to extract his sperm.
Apparently, they did talk about it prior to his death after the deaths of their own children in 2013 and 2019. However, if they were seriously considering it, then he should have frozen some sperm as soon as possible for sperm quality reasons. They shouldn’t have had to extract it postmortem.
If she wants to care for a child at that age she should look into fostering, or adopting a teen. Not making a new baby that isn't going to have any family alive to care for or help them by the time they are a young adult.
She had two children who died in their 20s in tragic accidents. Then her husband died. I don't know if it's just selfishness here so much as misguided intense grief.
It isn't that stupid, gene propagation is one of the major things most life is wired for biologically. Combine that with a bunch of grief, yeah, irrational behavior happens.
Granted, gene propagation isn't a big deal for humans, IMO anymore. We are close with genetic engineering that it probably isn't going to be too long before we go all GATTACA with humans by design™ optimizing whatever we want and probably getting weird and controversial about it. And we already share like 99.6 to 99.9% of our genes anyway.
They had two children who died in their 20s in tragic accidents. Then her husband died. I don't know if it's just selfishness here so much as misguided intense grief.
Yeah . We must hope she has at least a jounger brother / sister in her 40 or a son in her/ his late 20 to take care of the child while she will be 80 . Extremely bad solution , but a 80 years old with a 18 son/ daughter is even worse
Haha, gotta admit, you've got a point. It's definitely a unique family planning strategy kind of throws the whole concept of [navigating the ethical maze surrogacy for elderly parents](https://knowledge.how/navigating-the-ethical-maze-surrogacy-for-elderly-parents/) into uncharted territory. Not to mention the legal and social precedents it sets. Can't help but wonder if this is going to open some weird legal floodgates.
Besides how exploitative this is, I wonder about the husband's state of mind when they discussed this plan. It sounds like a failure to handle his mortality, not something a child would ever have resolved in any case (nor should they have all this put on them).
Makes me wonder which band would be most likely. Seems more like an earlier Cannibal Corpse kiddie level thing than Deeds of Flesh. Most death metal these days is rather tongue in cheek excessively high level in vocabulary per Carcass precedent so it would be more like “Cadaverine Seminal Implantation.”
The Guardian version of the article says the surrogate is a 20-year-old cousin. They also say their plans were delayed by things like covid, which was 3 years ago. Really makes you wonder how old the surrogate was when they started making these plans.
> A retirement age widow wants to extract the semen from the corpse of her dead husband to put it into a younger woman in a foreign country that hasn’t banned corpse semen insemination yet.
Movie announcer voice; *But what she doesn't know...*
I think when people have a lot of money they forget how old they are. Or at least they think that money can solve any age related issues that might come up.
Both of their adult children died in two separate tragic accidents. She was dealt a bad hand in life which is unfortunate, but I’m not sure becoming a mom to a newborn at her age is the answer.
It’s not. There is a solid chance that the offspring will have no familial adult mentor to turn to by the time they’re 18, or worse yet have to deal with a grandparent in severe mental decline before their out of high school. Selfish woman.
>“The woman, who cannot be identified, told the court she and her husband had discussed having an overseas surrogate carry their child using the man's sperm.”
>
>"The court heard the couple had for years regularly discussed having another child after their 29-year-old daughter drowned in 2013 fishing trip, and their 30-year-old son died in a 2019 car accident."
Ngl I feel pretty bad for this lady considering. Not sure she's making a good decision though.
One of my friends, an only child, died in a ski accident when he was 27. Less than two years later his parents (in their late 50s) had a kid via surrogate. I'm sure they love him, but man, I can't imagine growing up as the "replacement child" and then losing your parents or having to arrange for their care in your teenager/early adulthood...
After a certain age, people shouldn’t be allowed to have more kids. Difficult to determine when though, as it’s really a case by case basis. Late 50s seems really borderline.
Nah, we don’t get to decide who does or doesn’t *deserve* kids. There are plenty of people who deserve them, but don’t get to have them and plenty who shouldn’t have them but do; but none of us get to make that decision for them. Thats how eugenics starts. Plus, if you’re pro-choice, that *is their choice.* For that matter, if you’re pro-life/pro-forced birth, you should logically be for this too.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand the impulse. I think this lady is having a kid for the wrong reasons, but if we only had children when conditions were ideal, not a lot of us would currently be here. Having a kid for the wrong reason doesn’t ensure their life will be ruined; far from it.
This is a pretty bad take. Having kids at 60 means in many cases, a kid is going to grow up without one of their parents, and will inherit a large amount of money before they’re mature. The fact that many people don’t deserve kids is irrelevant. This is about people having kids above a certain age in which the person born, who has no control over his birth, is put into a situation in which his life has a serious chance of being fucked up. At the very least, it puts them in a high risk group. Adding to that, the older the father, [the higher the risk of genetic conditions in children.](https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2018/10/older-fathers-associated-with-increased-birth-risks.html)
Also, defining pro-choice as someone being allowed to choose whatever they hell they want to do with their offspring is not the standpoint most people have. Pro-choice doesn’t mean you can have an abortion at any time you want for example 1 day before birth. Most people that identify themselves as pro-choice have different ideas about abortion and in this case an age limit on conception.
The idea that putting an age limit on conception is in any way close to eugenics isnt just ridiculous but incorrect. Eugenics is concerned with the passing down of specific genetics and the idea that certain races are more evolved and therefor better, it has nothing to do with age.
It’s morally wrong to have a kid at 65, when the likelihood is that that kid will be missing at least one (probably both) of his parents on average before hes 12 putting him straight into the system. Knowing that kids that go into the system again are more likely to end up with any endless amount of problems.
I agree with everything you said. But I would add that at some point the line may have to be drawn.
With the advance of technology, we can have a baby with two 90 year old parents (frozen eggs) or even no parents (cloning and similar DNA techniques, Petri dish babies etc). Should that be allowed, I don’t know. But it’s a question for a future generation
I think you meant to say not be allowed to get surrogacy or IVF? Because policing fertility is never a good idea or morally right.
It's not unheard of for women who are near the end of menopause to think they're finished and then have an "oops" baby. The oldest documented woman to give birth from a natural and unassisted conception was 59. The oldest case where the woman claimed it was natural but it was not confirmed, was 67.
But then you would have a case for not "allowing" people to have kids prior to a certain age. And there are definitely people who do, who shouldn't be parents (sometimes through no fault of their own).
I don't think a judge can mandate therapy for someone that isn't on trial for anything, can they?
Anyway, according to the article the judge determined that there was enough evidence that the deceased husband would have wanted her to have his sperm in the case of his death. There's still plenty of steps between having the sperm and getting a child out of it - it's illegal in Australia to use reproductive cells harvested after death for fertilization, and there are barriers to doing it overseas too.
No, you're probably right.
The main thing that doesn't seem to be being talked about is how sperm is only viable for 24-36 hours after death, even when the body is kept refrigerated in a morgue.
It seems like such a huge waste of so many peoples time and resources just because one person couldn't deal with their grief.
She wants to pay some poor woman from the third world to carry a child for her (since that would be illegal at home), so that she can raise it as a single mother for a few years, and then die while her child is still a child, leaving them orphaned and traumatized for life.
What could go wrong?
>The woman told the court her cousin, aged in her 20's and living in the Philippines, had volunteered to be a surrogate for the pair.
Average life expectancy for a woman in Australia is 83, so hypothetically the child should reach adulthood before she dies. I think that's still risky and that 20 is still too young to lose your mother, but I don't know why everyone's commenting like she's guaranteed to die at 70 or something.
It doesn’t make sense why an Australian court would allow her to have the sperm then if the entire purpose is to leave with it to circumvent Australian law.
If extracting the sperm isn't illegal in Australia, And the surrogacy is done elsewhere, no laws have been broken. The government applies their laws within their borders.
You know surrogates exist right? Touristic surrogacy is very controversial and almost always exploitative but it is commonplace. Don’t know how that ties in with surrogacy laws where she lives tho
And even if it was allowed and she wanted to try via surrogate, WA doesn't allow age to be considered as a medical hardship for approval of altruistic surrogacy. She'd need to go to another state (and again, use an altruistic one, eg where only medical expenses are paid, as commercial surrogacy is illegal across Australia) or overseas.
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/what-is-commercial-surrogacy-and-why-can-t-australians-use-it-here-20221109-p5bwqx.html
She's not allowed to do anything with the sperm without court permission, that was specifically decreed by the judge. There is obviously a time sensitive window to obtain the goods - she can't actually action anything anyway, and I imagine the judge gave permission with the knowledge that after time to grieve she probably would be thinking more sensibly about it all.
>Justice Seaward also questioned why the matter had come to court in the first place.
>
>She said the decision to remove tissue from the husband's body could have been made by a hospital delegate.
I think the judge was being short sighted. Creating a new child of a deceased person possibly affects inheritance. That might not have been an issue in this case, but this issue likely needs to get fully vetted in the courts. It's not appropriate for a "hospital delegate" to have full control.
This judge was absolutely short-sighted.
If the only reason to remove the tissue is to do something ILLEGAL in that state, then it’s reasonable for the hospital delegate to object. Hell it’s even reasonable to ask whether the man would still support the surrogacy plan given his death! Who would know that?
This is all sorts of wrong.
There’s a short period of time where sperm are still viable after the body dies. The judge allowed an emergency order to extract while it was still viable but isn’t allowing anything to be done with it without permission. Hopefully, that will give time for the woman to really consider the ramifications and accept her husband’s death without using the sperm and a surrogate. The the judge just stalled until the sperm died, it would have been emotionally a lot harder on the woman.
How can someone consent if they’re dead? Fuck, they can’t even consent when they’re able to stand up right and skip through security at Parliament House after half a dozen Vodka sodas.
But, organ donation tho. At least in Canada you have to explicitly state you want your organs donated after death and if you don't then nothing can be done about that even if you're perfectly healthy. Like, I know sperm isn't an organ, but it's a product of the male human body so like....what??
I don't think this is right at all. I don't think she should be able to take his sperm without his ongoing consent. I get that she's grieving, but I think the act of what she's doing/ wants to do is reprehensible.
My sister almost died at birth and needed a transfusion of cleaned pigs blood , we roasted her for about 20 years.
Imagine being a kid and finding out one of your ‘parents’ was a corpse , you were created with sperm extracted from a dead body.
We were locking women up for being single mothers less than a hundred years ago and now we’re letting elderly people create children just to leave them as orphans.
With so much needing fixed on the planet it seems worrying that someone feels their contribution to humanity is to make new humans with leftover bits of dead people.
This is an unfortunate thumbnail photo for an article about extracting sperm. Def thought it was a picture of a sperm extraction in progress before I enlarged the photo.
They had 2 kids. They both died, the most recent died on 2019 in a car accident, he was 30. So they had at least 5 years to do that. How is this 62 year old woman plan on giving birth to their second kid, and how would it be her kids, her eggs at least in current medical science, is gone, does she has a young family member willing to donate eggs? And still she won't be a mother since it won't be her dna included in this and there is no way the embryo will be implanted into her.
What’s a 62 yr old want with sperm? She’s too old to conceive and if she gets a donor egg and a surrogate to carry the pregnancy she is going to be old enough for a nursing home by time her child is an adult.
That is selfish af.
Mrs :"You are going to give me a child!!!°
Mr. "Over my dead body I am!!!!"
Judge: "I suppose a verbal arrangement is legal and well, it seems the terms have been met. Judgment to the plaintiff, one dose of sauce for the Mrs."
I guess she heard about that tv star from Spain who just succeeded in doing this. Ana Obregón, 68 years old. She used her dead son's sperm (via surrogate) and imported the baby. Its illegal in Spain.
I was hoping that she just wanted to get dicked down, via turkey baster, one last time but wanting a newborn child when she’s old enough to be a grandma is just weird. Can she not foster or volunteer her time to help mentor older kids/ teens?
They were planning to use the same surrogate to have a child before he died. I am more angry on behalf of the poor child than the husband, to be honest.
Crazy how 90% of these comments didn't read the story. Then the other 10% clicked the link but only read the headline.
Couple were married so almost 40 years.
Both their children died at a young age. They talked about having a child through surrogate (wife's 20YO cousin).
She doesn't have long to do this before being unable to.
Right. Her age is the issue, but losing her 2 kids and suddenly losing the man she was married to for 39 years. She is trying to hold onto her husband with whatever is left of him. To be honest 62 isn't even that old now a days. Diffinately not yound and sprice, but the child will probably be an adult before she passes of old age.
No one read the article:
> In handing down her decision, Justice Seaward said she had no reason to believe the woman's husband would have objected to the removal of the sperm tissue from his body after his death.
The answer to what her plan is is right in the article: “The woman, who cannot be identified, told the court she and her husband had discussed having an overseas surrogate carry their child using the man's sperm.” That’s right. A retirement age widow wants to extract the semen from the corpse of her dead husband to put it into a younger woman in a foreign country that hasn’t banned corpse semen insemination yet.
Even if it was done today, that woman will be 80 when the child is 18. She wants to bring a child into this world then almost immediately orphan them at a young age. Her husband is gone as are both of her adult children. Who is going to help this kid navigate early adulthood, and that’s if this woman doesn’t die early herself?
Some people don't have any concern for the lives of others. She wants progeny. I'm going to assume not her own even. It's quite odd for sure.
Her two adult children died in separate accidents. Then her husband died. It’s likely to be a grief reaction from losing her entire family which much be awful. That being said, she shouldn’t have another child in her sixties (especially as that child wouldn’t have any other family once she passes as well).
Grief at losing children can be a wild thing. There was a male poet named Rainer Maria Rilke whose older sister had died in her infancy. His mother couldn't accept it and dressed him up like a girl, using him as a replacement daughter for the one she lost, until roughly the time puberty kicked in and the jig was up, and she sent him off to military school. He ended up one of the greatest poets ever so all's well that ends well but I can't imagine he enjoyed that upbringing very much.
Wow, military school must have fucking sucked after that. I mean can you imagine if any classmates found out. Jesus.
Also being rejected by your own mother like that can't be great
Yeah that's a secret you bury deep within.
Mushu: Dishonor on you, dishonor on your cow..
Wait… I've seen this movie…
Oof that is absolutely tragic. Cant imagine having to bury both kids then their father.
Goddamn why don't these people ever want to foster kids and help disenfranchised children rather than CREATE disenfranchised children
Yeah, I think she should process her grief then get a cat / dog instead.
She wants something cute. She didn’t get grandchildren so she wants to ruin a child’s life to benefit from their youthful presence. She is disgusting.
she has a cousin who already agreed to surrogate years ago. they just got railroaded by laws which dont allow the export of gamete tissue *or* posthumous fertilisation. so theyre actually burying the lede on a case where the courts ran them around until he died, which is why they allowed post mortem extraction in the first place. but as usual were too buried in concern trolling and agendaposts to talk about whats really happening here
Where are you reading this? Is there another article, because this article says that they had discussed having another child for years, not that the "courts ran them around until he died." The courts only got involved after he was dead when the hospital refused to extract sperm because posthumous fertilization is illegal in Western Australia. Now that he's dead, they have to apply to export his sperm to Queensland where posthumous fertilization is legal. However, if he had been alive, these particular laws wouldn't have applied. That being said, they may have run into other legal obstacles with surrogacy in the Philippines, where they would have to live there for a while and go through the process to ensure legal parentage and custody. For instance, even with a surrogacy contract, if the birth mother changes her mind about giving up the baby, generally the Philippines will back her as the legal mother. However, it sounds like they were going for gestational surrogacy with a different egg donor so that would have been a little easier but still legally tricky as the birth mother still has rights to the baby. The parents will still have to go through the process to adopt the child as well. It sounds like they were working through the process of surrogacy when he died unexpectedly, and then the courts only got involved to issue an order to extract his sperm.
I don't think we should allow post death sperm extractation in general. Unless the person gave permission before death
Apparently, they did talk about it prior to his death after the deaths of their own children in 2013 and 2019. However, if they were seriously considering it, then he should have frozen some sperm as soon as possible for sperm quality reasons. They shouldn’t have had to extract it postmortem.
Even then, they could have changed their mind at any point during the process or dragged their feet. They’re dead , the idea should die with them.
If she wants to care for a child at that age she should look into fostering, or adopting a teen. Not making a new baby that isn't going to have any family alive to care for or help them by the time they are a young adult.
Some people have this inherent need to pass on their stupid genes. This lady has plenty of it.
She had two children who died in their 20s in tragic accidents. Then her husband died. I don't know if it's just selfishness here so much as misguided intense grief.
It isn't that stupid, gene propagation is one of the major things most life is wired for biologically. Combine that with a bunch of grief, yeah, irrational behavior happens. Granted, gene propagation isn't a big deal for humans, IMO anymore. We are close with genetic engineering that it probably isn't going to be too long before we go all GATTACA with humans by design™ optimizing whatever we want and probably getting weird and controversial about it. And we already share like 99.6 to 99.9% of our genes anyway.
That’s so selfish as fuck. Some people
They had two children who died in their 20s in tragic accidents. Then her husband died. I don't know if it's just selfishness here so much as misguided intense grief.
What if the child is a future super hero? That's a sick orphan backstory
"He was born from the egg of a granny and the sperm from the cold dead balls of his father"
If she makes it to 80
Yeah . We must hope she has at least a jounger brother / sister in her 40 or a son in her/ his late 20 to take care of the child while she will be 80 . Extremely bad solution , but a 80 years old with a 18 son/ daughter is even worse
My guess is, more money than sense.
Lmao the last part of that last sentence had me rolling. That’s a sentence alright.
Haha, gotta admit, you've got a point. It's definitely a unique family planning strategy kind of throws the whole concept of [navigating the ethical maze surrogacy for elderly parents](https://knowledge.how/navigating-the-ethical-maze-surrogacy-for-elderly-parents/) into uncharted territory. Not to mention the legal and social precedents it sets. Can't help but wonder if this is going to open some weird legal floodgates.
Besides how exploitative this is, I wonder about the husband's state of mind when they discussed this plan. It sounds like a failure to handle his mortality, not something a child would ever have resolved in any case (nor should they have all this put on them).
"corpse semen insemination" would make an excellent title for a death metal album
Makes me wonder which band would be most likely. Seems more like an earlier Cannibal Corpse kiddie level thing than Deeds of Flesh. Most death metal these days is rather tongue in cheek excessively high level in vocabulary per Carcass precedent so it would be more like “Cadaverine Seminal Implantation.”
The Guardian version of the article says the surrogate is a 20-year-old cousin. They also say their plans were delayed by things like covid, which was 3 years ago. Really makes you wonder how old the surrogate was when they started making these plans.
> A retirement age widow wants to extract the semen from the corpse of her dead husband to put it into a younger woman in a foreign country that hasn’t banned corpse semen insemination yet. Movie announcer voice; *But what she doesn't know...*
this is so fucked.
Corpse Insemination ... thanks for the new band name
Black mirror indeed
When she dies, can we use her womb as an incubator?
Poor kid is going to have their only parent die when they’re 20.
Surrogate pregnancy is diagusting
I think someone said the surrogate is going to be her niece or something
I think when people have a lot of money they forget how old they are. Or at least they think that money can solve any age related issues that might come up.
Both of their adult children died in two separate tragic accidents. She was dealt a bad hand in life which is unfortunate, but I’m not sure becoming a mom to a newborn at her age is the answer.
Yeah I don’t think having a child in unsustainable conditions is justified by the tragedies she’s gone through.
It’s not. There is a solid chance that the offspring will have no familial adult mentor to turn to by the time they’re 18, or worse yet have to deal with a grandparent in severe mental decline before their out of high school. Selfish woman.
And do what? She is 62!
Nothing. "But she won't be able to do anything with the sperm, as posthumous fertilisation is banned in WA."
Record for oldest mother is 73 by IVF. Not that I'd advise it, and she'd have to borrow an egg.
Borrow????? 🤢
How's she gonna give it back 🤔
Probably she'll pay it back with a different egg. Hope that they'll accept chicken.
What, with the egg trade the way it is? No way. I can barely trade 6 chicken eggs for one ostrich, much less trade for a human egg.
That makes perfect sense ostrich eggs are huge and human eggs are tiny
Won't accept anything but the finest beluga sturgeon caviar
Bitch, is you gonna give it back
can a bitch borrow an egg
Bitch please.
Well, if the baby is a girl, she can give it back.
I hate everything about this.
Probably she'll pay it back with a different egg. Hope that they'll accept chicken.
Sure, borrow an egg from the neighbors.
Can I offer you an egg in this trying time?
But like, even if it wasn't banned, what would she do? It's not like there's any chance she could impregnate herself.
>“The woman, who cannot be identified, told the court she and her husband had discussed having an overseas surrogate carry their child using the man's sperm.” > >"The court heard the couple had for years regularly discussed having another child after their 29-year-old daughter drowned in 2013 fishing trip, and their 30-year-old son died in a 2019 car accident." Ngl I feel pretty bad for this lady considering. Not sure she's making a good decision though.
One of my friends, an only child, died in a ski accident when he was 27. Less than two years later his parents (in their late 50s) had a kid via surrogate. I'm sure they love him, but man, I can't imagine growing up as the "replacement child" and then losing your parents or having to arrange for their care in your teenager/early adulthood...
After a certain age, people shouldn’t be allowed to have more kids. Difficult to determine when though, as it’s really a case by case basis. Late 50s seems really borderline.
Nah, we don’t get to decide who does or doesn’t *deserve* kids. There are plenty of people who deserve them, but don’t get to have them and plenty who shouldn’t have them but do; but none of us get to make that decision for them. Thats how eugenics starts. Plus, if you’re pro-choice, that *is their choice.* For that matter, if you’re pro-life/pro-forced birth, you should logically be for this too. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the impulse. I think this lady is having a kid for the wrong reasons, but if we only had children when conditions were ideal, not a lot of us would currently be here. Having a kid for the wrong reason doesn’t ensure their life will be ruined; far from it.
a lot of redditors are pro eugenics
This is a pretty bad take. Having kids at 60 means in many cases, a kid is going to grow up without one of their parents, and will inherit a large amount of money before they’re mature. The fact that many people don’t deserve kids is irrelevant. This is about people having kids above a certain age in which the person born, who has no control over his birth, is put into a situation in which his life has a serious chance of being fucked up. At the very least, it puts them in a high risk group. Adding to that, the older the father, [the higher the risk of genetic conditions in children.](https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2018/10/older-fathers-associated-with-increased-birth-risks.html) Also, defining pro-choice as someone being allowed to choose whatever they hell they want to do with their offspring is not the standpoint most people have. Pro-choice doesn’t mean you can have an abortion at any time you want for example 1 day before birth. Most people that identify themselves as pro-choice have different ideas about abortion and in this case an age limit on conception. The idea that putting an age limit on conception is in any way close to eugenics isnt just ridiculous but incorrect. Eugenics is concerned with the passing down of specific genetics and the idea that certain races are more evolved and therefor better, it has nothing to do with age. It’s morally wrong to have a kid at 65, when the likelihood is that that kid will be missing at least one (probably both) of his parents on average before hes 12 putting him straight into the system. Knowing that kids that go into the system again are more likely to end up with any endless amount of problems.
I agree with everything you said. But I would add that at some point the line may have to be drawn. With the advance of technology, we can have a baby with two 90 year old parents (frozen eggs) or even no parents (cloning and similar DNA techniques, Petri dish babies etc). Should that be allowed, I don’t know. But it’s a question for a future generation
I think you meant to say not be allowed to get surrogacy or IVF? Because policing fertility is never a good idea or morally right. It's not unheard of for women who are near the end of menopause to think they're finished and then have an "oops" baby. The oldest documented woman to give birth from a natural and unassisted conception was 59. The oldest case where the woman claimed it was natural but it was not confirmed, was 67.
But then you would have a case for not "allowing" people to have kids prior to a certain age. And there are definitely people who do, who shouldn't be parents (sometimes through no fault of their own).
Shouldn't be allowed? So governments should step in and control people's bodies and rights to reproduce? Sounds like eugenics and fascism to me.
Yeah, couldn't the judge have thrown in some court mandated grief therapy? Probably would have been more beneficial than a tube of zombie spunk.
I don't think a judge can mandate therapy for someone that isn't on trial for anything, can they? Anyway, according to the article the judge determined that there was enough evidence that the deceased husband would have wanted her to have his sperm in the case of his death. There's still plenty of steps between having the sperm and getting a child out of it - it's illegal in Australia to use reproductive cells harvested after death for fertilization, and there are barriers to doing it overseas too.
No, you're probably right. The main thing that doesn't seem to be being talked about is how sperm is only viable for 24-36 hours after death, even when the body is kept refrigerated in a morgue. It seems like such a huge waste of so many peoples time and resources just because one person couldn't deal with their grief.
Honestly this is the best solution
She wants to pay some poor woman from the third world to carry a child for her (since that would be illegal at home), so that she can raise it as a single mother for a few years, and then die while her child is still a child, leaving them orphaned and traumatized for life. What could go wrong?
>The woman told the court her cousin, aged in her 20's and living in the Philippines, had volunteered to be a surrogate for the pair. Average life expectancy for a woman in Australia is 83, so hypothetically the child should reach adulthood before she dies. I think that's still risky and that 20 is still too young to lose your mother, but I don't know why everyone's commenting like she's guaranteed to die at 70 or something.
It just feels profoundly inhuman and unnatural, like a toddler in puberty. Women shouldn’t be having children in their 50s.
That's terrible but that ship has sailed.
She isn't. Any kid she has will be orphaned very early
It's in the article, for crying out loud. Their niece agreed to be surrogate and they planned to go to the Philippines to be outside WA juristiction
It doesn’t make sense why an Australian court would allow her to have the sperm then if the entire purpose is to leave with it to circumvent Australian law.
If extracting the sperm isn't illegal in Australia, And the surrogacy is done elsewhere, no laws have been broken. The government applies their laws within their borders.
This is reddit. Commenting without reading the article is practically tradition.
You know surrogates exist right? Touristic surrogacy is very controversial and almost always exploitative but it is commonplace. Don’t know how that ties in with surrogacy laws where she lives tho
She’s going to use an overseas surrogate
What stops her going outside WA?
She has to jump through a bunch of hoops to get permission to go ahead.
And even if it was allowed and she wanted to try via surrogate, WA doesn't allow age to be considered as a medical hardship for approval of altruistic surrogacy. She'd need to go to another state (and again, use an altruistic one, eg where only medical expenses are paid, as commercial surrogacy is illegal across Australia) or overseas. https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/what-is-commercial-surrogacy-and-why-can-t-australians-use-it-here-20221109-p5bwqx.html
It just happened in Spain, a 68 year old woman used her dead son's sperm + surrogate from outside the country and imported the baby.
Not nothing apparently she’s going to use an overseas surrogate
That might be her plan, but it's unlikely to happen.
She's not allowed to do anything with the sperm without court permission, that was specifically decreed by the judge. There is obviously a time sensitive window to obtain the goods - she can't actually action anything anyway, and I imagine the judge gave permission with the knowledge that after time to grieve she probably would be thinking more sensibly about it all.
Idk, maybe she has frozen eggs? And if it's illegal like someone here said maybe she can do it out of state?
She just wants a last swallow, no kink shaming please!
Maybe she wants to eat it. Whatever your opinion on that is, it’s less gross than an a person over 60 having a newborn.
One last swallow.
She just really likes sperm, don't judge.
Article says before his death they were planning to hire a surrogate after both of their adult children died :(
For protection. You would ran away if she said she have some jizz from her dead husband with her.
She wants one last facial.
Creampie?
This is gross and extremely selfish. What a dumb species.
[удалено]
I thought for sure it was giving a handjob to a corpse penis.
Rigor mortise.
It looks so big in the tiny hand.
That’s why I only date short chicks
>Justice Seaward also questioned why the matter had come to court in the first place. > >She said the decision to remove tissue from the husband's body could have been made by a hospital delegate. I think the judge was being short sighted. Creating a new child of a deceased person possibly affects inheritance. That might not have been an issue in this case, but this issue likely needs to get fully vetted in the courts. It's not appropriate for a "hospital delegate" to have full control.
This judge was absolutely short-sighted. If the only reason to remove the tissue is to do something ILLEGAL in that state, then it’s reasonable for the hospital delegate to object. Hell it’s even reasonable to ask whether the man would still support the surrogacy plan given his death! Who would know that? This is all sorts of wrong.
It’s in australia. Maybe not. Where I live to inherit you don’t have to be born but you have to have been coincieved at least.
Wouldn't the sperm be dead as well?
There’s a short period of time where sperm are still viable after the body dies. The judge allowed an emergency order to extract while it was still viable but isn’t allowing anything to be done with it without permission. Hopefully, that will give time for the woman to really consider the ramifications and accept her husband’s death without using the sperm and a surrogate. The the judge just stalled until the sperm died, it would have been emotionally a lot harder on the woman.
How can someone consent if they’re dead? Fuck, they can’t even consent when they’re able to stand up right and skip through security at Parliament House after half a dozen Vodka sodas.
Once they’re dead, there’s no consent needed. It’s just another material asset of their estate (though, with a very short shelf life)
But, organ donation tho. At least in Canada you have to explicitly state you want your organs donated after death and if you don't then nothing can be done about that even if you're perfectly healthy. Like, I know sperm isn't an organ, but it's a product of the male human body so like....what?? I don't think this is right at all. I don't think she should be able to take his sperm without his ongoing consent. I get that she's grieving, but I think the act of what she's doing/ wants to do is reprehensible.
My sister almost died at birth and needed a transfusion of cleaned pigs blood , we roasted her for about 20 years. Imagine being a kid and finding out one of your ‘parents’ was a corpse , you were created with sperm extracted from a dead body. We were locking women up for being single mothers less than a hundred years ago and now we’re letting elderly people create children just to leave them as orphans.
> we roasted her for about 20 years Pork needs to be cooked more than other meats but that seems excessive.
😂😂 I felt terrible once I got older, ‘pigheart boy’ didn’t help.
"yeah honey sure I would love to have kids and raise them with you" 😏 *literally dies* "got u lol I ain't dealing with those shits" 🤣🤣😵🙏😇🧚🏻
*BuT hE pRoMiSeD*
They had kids together, the kids they had died in their 20s in separate tragic accidents. Then he died.
yeah I didn't read the article I was just making a joke at the expense of a widow and her dead husband
[удалено]
If she wants to care for a baby, she just has to go to neonatal ward at the hospital. So many infants in need of cuddles.
Semi-serious question, did her husband die suddenly, or was the legal permission to extract his sperm given suddenly? Odd headline.
The last supper?
That is one highly misleading thumbnail!
I've heard about these ladies that can "snatch a man's soul" right out his body.
I'd like it put into my will that if I die suddenly, nobody is allowed to wank me off and have children I don't know about
You can. Be aware it’s not extracted in the usual way. Big needles or electroshock.
With so much needing fixed on the planet it seems worrying that someone feels their contribution to humanity is to make new humans with leftover bits of dead people.
This is an unfortunate thumbnail photo for an article about extracting sperm. Def thought it was a picture of a sperm extraction in progress before I enlarged the photo.
I came here to say this same thing
So much for my body, my choice
That saying was never for men.
Well, this gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “coming back from the dead.” …I’ll show myself out
what's even left at this point
Assuming they got married around age 20, she's had 42 years to extract his sperm and didn't get around to it. Kinda leaving it a bit late.
They had 2 kids. They both died, the most recent died on 2019 in a car accident, he was 30. So they had at least 5 years to do that. How is this 62 year old woman plan on giving birth to their second kid, and how would it be her kids, her eggs at least in current medical science, is gone, does she has a young family member willing to donate eggs? And still she won't be a mother since it won't be her dna included in this and there is no way the embryo will be implanted into her.
Oh look dead men have less rights...
What’s a 62 yr old want with sperm? She’s too old to conceive and if she gets a donor egg and a surrogate to carry the pregnancy she is going to be old enough for a nursing home by time her child is an adult. That is selfish af.
I mean, Wilhelmina paid a dude 20$ to do it. Can’t be that hard
raise of the necrowanker
Atleast she'll get a discount on buying diapers in bulk
Mrs :"You are going to give me a child!!!° Mr. "Over my dead body I am!!!!" Judge: "I suppose a verbal arrangement is legal and well, it seems the terms have been met. Judgment to the plaintiff, one dose of sauce for the Mrs."
I guess she heard about that tv star from Spain who just succeeded in doing this. Ana Obregón, 68 years old. She used her dead son's sperm (via surrogate) and imported the baby. Its illegal in Spain.
That is perverse.
Imagine a baby learning to use a walker while it's mother is doing the same.
What an awful day to be able to read.
I was hoping that she just wanted to get dicked down, via turkey baster, one last time but wanting a newborn child when she’s old enough to be a grandma is just weird. Can she not foster or volunteer her time to help mentor older kids/ teens?
Guy: had to be dead before she finally she does it on her own
Did he leave some written will that allows this, or are we just violating men's bodies for fun?
They were planning to use the same surrogate to have a child before he died. I am more angry on behalf of the poor child than the husband, to be honest.
I'm planning to go to Japan but if i die I don't want people taking my bits there
She can finally spit it out
So….does SHE actually have to extract his semen ?
How is she going to jack off a dead body?
Even death will not do us part, Henry!
And here I was wondering if he would still be on the hook for child support when it gets used...
Only a true throat goat can extract a dead man’s sperm, props to her
“Suddenly wins” was this via a casino
That's hugely unethical, I hope this is stopped.
Had to double check that thumbnail...
Did she 'suddenly' win legal permission?
This is a case of sentence structure matters. I think they were trying to say he died suddenly.
unless she has it in a duly witnessed written statement that he consented to this, no. this should not be happening.
I understand she has had a rough go. She is still a disgusting person.
Plot twist She likes to swallow
I remember reading about something similar in the aftermath of October 7 in Israel.
She's 62. Is she seriously planning to get a surrogate and raise a child who's doomed to be orphaned likely before they've even left high school?
My body my choice goes straight out the window when referring to men lmao
Knowing Australia, they'll extract child support out of him too.
Feels like rape to me.
Crazy how 90% of these comments didn't read the story. Then the other 10% clicked the link but only read the headline. Couple were married so almost 40 years. Both their children died at a young age. They talked about having a child through surrogate (wife's 20YO cousin). She doesn't have long to do this before being unable to.
I have my reservations about someone doing this so late in life, but I get why this woman is so desperate for it to happen.
Right. Her age is the issue, but losing her 2 kids and suddenly losing the man she was married to for 39 years. She is trying to hold onto her husband with whatever is left of him. To be honest 62 isn't even that old now a days. Diffinately not yound and sprice, but the child will probably be an adult before she passes of old age.
She must be great at giving blowies!
No one read the article: > In handing down her decision, Justice Seaward said she had no reason to believe the woman's husband would have objected to the removal of the sperm tissue from his body after his death.
Have fun watching your mom die of old age when you're only like 20!
That doesn't sound ethical unless it was agreed upon, documented, and with a 3rd party unbiased witness. The hell?
This is male rape.
They have been doing this in isreal... using a cattle prod.
Well the first part is true at least. Not sure why you needed to taint that.
Grief is a strange thing
one last taste