https://theconversation.com/in-a-world-first-singapores-highest-court-rules-that-parents-deserve-kids-with-their-genes-75199 Thoughts?
This is an extremely complex issue. I actually had a long discussion my lawyer friends some time ago on whether the woman who was artificially inseminated with the wrong sperm should be compensated for the child's upkeep till 21. I was for it, because this part -
"The court denied the couple’s claim for upkeep costs because it would have a pernicious effect in that the child’s birth would be seen as an overall mistake, or loss to the parents.
The parents are raising the child, and an award would send a perverse and harmful message to the child that she was not valued, that her very existence required monetary compensation."
It didn't make sense to me. I feel that regardless of what the law compensates, a child will know his value to his parents simply by how his parents treat him. The seeking of monetary compensation does not symbolise the parents don't love their child but rather that what they originally paid for was not given to them - a child with both parents' DNA. Saying that I didn't get what I paid for does not signify what I got is necessarily worse, it just isn't what I wanted.
If I wanted to buy a donkey and you sold me a horse and that horse has to stay with me, it makes sense you compensate me for the horse's expenses because you forced this horse upon me. Whether or not in the long term I treat the horse with the same love as I would a donkey has no bearing on you fucking up your deal and is none of your business.
My friends and I kinda met with an impasse and they were for no compensation, because they feel that the parents got what they wanted, which is a child to love. But how can that be? The child does not belong to the father, only the mother. It makes no sense that he should be obligated to pay for the child's upkeep. That is not what he paid for or signed up for when he did his IVF with his wife.
This new genetic affinity law is fantastic because it solves both sides of the conundrum. It can be worded clearer and not be focused so much on skin colour or appearance, but rather DNA. I would say that it is a brilliant idea to categorise a significant type of loss that isn't regarding the child as a rejected commercial object of sorts.
This Thomson Medical fuck up is COLOSSAL. I think that there are very valid answers from both sides and this 30% compensation or genetic affinity loss is reasonable and acceptable to me.
"The court denied the couple’s claim for upkeep costs because it would have a pernicious effect in that the child’s birth would be seen as an overall mistake, or loss to the parents.
The parents are raising the child, and an award would send a perverse and harmful message to the child that she was not valued, that her very existence required monetary compensation."
It didn't make sense to me. I feel that regardless of what the law compensates, a child will know his value to his parents simply by how his parents treat him. The seeking of monetary compensation does not symbolise the parents don't love their child but rather that what they originally paid for was not given to them - a child with both parents' DNA. Saying that I didn't get what I paid for does not signify what I got is necessarily worse, it just isn't what I wanted.
If I wanted to buy a donkey and you sold me a horse and that horse has to stay with me, it makes sense you compensate me for the horse's expenses because you forced this horse upon me. Whether or not in the long term I treat the horse with the same love as I would a donkey has no bearing on you fucking up your deal and is none of your business.
My friends and I kinda met with an impasse and they were for no compensation, because they feel that the parents got what they wanted, which is a child to love. But how can that be? The child does not belong to the father, only the mother. It makes no sense that he should be obligated to pay for the child's upkeep. That is not what he paid for or signed up for when he did his IVF with his wife.
This new genetic affinity law is fantastic because it solves both sides of the conundrum. It can be worded clearer and not be focused so much on skin colour or appearance, but rather DNA. I would say that it is a brilliant idea to categorise a significant type of loss that isn't regarding the child as a rejected commercial object of sorts.
This Thomson Medical fuck up is COLOSSAL. I think that there are very valid answers from both sides and this 30% compensation or genetic affinity loss is reasonable and acceptable to me.
