Is it possible to give birth to a child of deceased parents?

November 20, 2008

 Is it possible to give birth to a child of deceased parents?
   In connection with the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan increases the number of deaths among the military. The US government warns of growing threats in the coming months. As a consequence, many American women are faced with a serious problem of the tragic choice - whether to have a child whose father was killed?

Precise statistics are not available, but it is known that many men - both married and unmarried - going to the hot spots, supplement the existing sperm bank. In this regard, a number of questions: Who will be allowed to make use of this sperm? How many times you can use it? After the lapse of time after the death of the donor? And how long should it be kept in the bank, remaining unclaimed?

To date, there are no clear laws and regulations governing the use of donor sperm after the death of a man who has passed it. Note that the issue of artificial insemination resolved in many countries - the United States, Israel and the developed countries, however, children conceived by this method, were born even before their fathers went to war zone of conflict.

For example, Sergeant Stephen Sutherland before leaving for Iraq passed the sperm to conceive a child after the war with his wife Maria. In November 2005, 33-year-old Stephen was killed.

Approximately six months after his death, Mary requested artificial insemination with sperm of the deceased husband, and soon gave birth to a boy. In an interview with NBC News, she admitted: "Despite the grief, I am pleased every day to see her son in the continuation of my dear man."

However, the sperm of the deceased men do not always get to the widow. It can be used to fertilize a close friend with whom the victim. Not long ago, the Israeli court ruled that the parents of the dead soldier can use his son's sperm to fertilize the woman with whom he had never met.

 Is it possible to give birth to a child of deceased parents?

The absence of the rule of law

The fact that children born after his father's death, as a rule, very loved, should not be an excuse for the lack of clear legislation governing the delicate moral questions. After all, the current level of technology allows you to receive a new life, and in the absence of biological parents.

Fertilization donor sperm - is not the only way to give birth to a child whose father was killed. Often, at the request of wives, brides, girlfriends fertilize them with sperm of a man who died suddenly - as a result of stroke Stroke - a serious brain injury  Stroke - a serious brain injury
 Heart attack Heart disease and heart attacks: that every woman should know  Heart disease and heart attacks: that every woman should know
 , A road accident - and usually without any written permission of the victim.

Unlike men, who have passed the sperm, knowing that they can die in hot spots, these people never spoke about what they would like to leave offspring in the case of sudden death. And if so, who should be the mother of the offspring (the bride, a constant friend, the surrogate mother, found his parents dead), but must be the children and the amount of time after death they can be born.

 Is it possible to give birth to a child of deceased parents?

How to keep up with advances in technology?

Freeze semen is much easier than the egg, but thanks to high technology will soon be established banks eggs, and you can even take the dead woman's egg. Thus, the possibility of creating a new people will become virtually limitless.

It is possible that soon the relatives of victims of car crashes, hurricanes and other disasters will turn to doctors with surprising request - to create a new life, taking sperm and egg from the dead couple.

Modern reproductive technology has leaped forward, leaving the last doubts about the possibility of visiting children from a test tube. The first such child in 1978. Louise Brown became. At that time no one knew about the possibility of surrogate motherhood and other methods of in vitro fertilization. Today, the company is concerned about the lack of legislation governing these processes. In fact, the main question arises: should a society guided by the interests of the child, to limit in any way the use of donor sperm and eggs?

Probably the answer is very simple: the law should prohibit the use of sperm, egg or embryo of a deceased person without the prior written consent of his.

Perhaps there is a need to establish a 90-day period during which these materials can not be used; thus reproductive technologies can be confident that no one acting under pressure from the outside or driven by a sense of irreparable loss. The decision of the relatives of the deceased on the establishment of a new life should be thought out and balanced, so the appointment of the 90-day period is essential.

There is another way to stop the uncontrolled emergence of a new life: the hospital with a sperm bank and egg cells, after five years after the death of the donor must destroy unclaimed materials. Guided by the interests of the future child, society wants to ensure their genuine love and concern.

Likewise, should regulate the voluntary donation of organs and tissues: a person can leave a written order that in the event of his death, you can use his sperm, egg or embryo in order to create a new life. The only way to achieve precise control of posthumous reproduction, and it should not be forgotten legislators.

Through reproductive technology, many people have received the most precious gift - the joy of parenthood. Yet only the law can protect society from the appearance of unwanted children, which no one wants to take care of, because their biological parents never dreamed of having children.

Therefore, legislators should learn to keep pace with the development of technology, which today is used for procreation, even after the death of the biological parents.

Article Tags:
  • Family Psychology

Curb the instinct of revenge, "An eye for an eye"?

June 11, 2012

 curb the instinct of revenge
 The rule of "an eye for an eye", which obviously encourages revenge, introduced in ancient times a king, ironically, in order to curb the people's desire for revenge. It is not known whether the king slept peacefully after this law is issued, but there is reason to doubt it.

He was concerned that cases of revenge in his kingdom completely out of control. Large areas almost drowned in the blood that people shed for the sake of revenge. For example, someone insulted Y-X, or, for example, his wife. The Y publicly vows revenge and will not rest until they kill Ickx, his wife, or both. X's family takes an oath that he will avenge. So revenge will move as inherited from generation to generation. The rule of "an eye for an eye" was intended to limit the endless acts of revenge. According to him, if someone hit you in the eye so that the eyes could no longer see, you could hit him in the eye in the same way and with the same result, but you had no right to kill him or members of his family.

 Curb the instinct of revenge, "An eye for an eye"?

The essence of the problem

The problem is that revenge begets revenge. Gandhi once said that if everyone followed the rule "an eye for an eye," would all have been blind. Fortunately, not all people obey the first desire for revenge or maybe it should be said - tend to enjoy "sweet revenge". What a curious choice of words - sweet revenge, fruit that grows from a clean bitterness and anger.

When relationships break down slowly, and one or both partners begin to hurt each other, they often spend more time and effort on the ground than on the restoration of relations. In the end, some people have absolutely no desire to do for the partner something nice, and they begin to enjoy that cause another person pain.

For example, a man finds a reason not to take the trash when it is his turn. He knows that by doing so angers his wife, but, nevertheless, does it. So begins a chain reaction. His wife adds, in response to her husband's shirt dirty laundry basket, but does not erase them. A few weeks later, he discovers that he does not have a clean shirt. It is justified by the fact that the spouse should not all just go with it.

If the spouses enjoy the permanent place of each other, they have no desire to restore relations. It's simple: it is much more fun to fight than to compromise. There are more pathological cases. Partners do hurt each other, and then putting up a time to re-build relationships, but only to again soon and happy start to torment each other. In both cases, the relationship is far from warm and constructive.

The manifestations of the instinct of revenge can do more harm avenger than the object of revenge. Restricted people often say they do not care what will happen to them; the main thing that the other party has suffered. As a result, people spend time and energy, his career stands still, all his plans are delayed or even forgotten, and all that - for the sake of a successful revenge. Think maybe your offender (if it is really something to hurt you) and it is necessary only that: your life is heading downhill, and as your own efforts. What should be the man who wishes you harm, right?

 Curb the instinct of revenge, "An eye for an eye"?

Is it worth wasting time on revenge?

Along with a penchant for retribution for the evil caused by (real or imagined), people also tend to return good for good. In this case, too, it may be a chain reaction of good deeds that will lead to warm, strong relationships and mutual respect.

If you have a desire to take revenge, do not rush, and think a little. Is it worth it? Hardly. What price are you willing to pay for it, to make sure that the object of your place is really suffering? Ask yourself, who else will suffer from your revenge. Think about your children, friends and other people that you value. Is it worth your satisfaction "total", which you have to pay?

Maybe, after all, we need to focus the energy that you are willing to spend on the place on something else? At least for a career. And you know, if someone really wants you evil, the worst way to get back at him - is to succeed in their business, to live life to the fullest and be happy.

Article Tags:
  • revenge