Woman who sought to have embryos preserved loses legal case

Sierra 117

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-woman-who-sought-to-have-embryos-preserved-6642106.php

I think the judge made the right decision.

The couple had signed a contract that the embryos would be destroyed upon divorce. She wanted to disregard that contract and her ex-husbands wishes because she wanted biological kids.

She should have frozen some eggs alongside those embryos just in case.

Letree

The contract said to destroy them upon divorce. The ex husband wished to stick to the contract terms there is no case really there.

Manach

I'd disagree. It is a manner of proportionality of rights and the end result. While one party would not wish the embryos to have the brought to term and assume parental obligations, the converse is that the potential of life has been snuffed away. Instead of blindly following the contractual law which has its basis on business dealings, a more human rights centred approach could have been taken. This could have left the embryos to be utilised by couples who are not otherwise able to do so naturally with the other party shorn of any legal responsibility for them.

prettyrestless

Manach wrote: »

I'd disagree. It is a manner of proportionality of rights and the end result. While one party would not wish the embryos to have the brought to term and assume parental obligations, the converse is that the potential of life has been snuffed away. Instead of blindly following the contractual law which has its basis on business dealings, a more human rights centred approach could have been taken. This could have left the embryos to be utilised by couples who are not otherwise able to do so naturally with the other party shorn of any legal responsibility for them.

That's a nice idea in theory but I wouldn't want my biological children wandering around somewhere being raised by someone else. That would tear me apart more than choosing to destroy the embryos.

Merrion

In Ireland it would be illegal to destroy those embryos.

Skoop

Merrion wrote: »

In Ireland it would be illegal to destroy those embryos.

Nah, has already been brought to the Supreme Court. rte.ie/news/2009/1215/125382-embryo/

Frozen embryos aren't protected by the eight amendment.

osarusan

prettyrestless wrote: »

That's a nice idea in theory

It isn't though.

rainbowtrout

Manach wrote: »

I'd disagree. It is a manner of proportionality of rights and the end result. While one party would not wish the embryos to have the brought to term and assume parental obligations, the converse is that the potential of life has been snuffed away. Instead of blindly following the contractual law which has its basis on business dealings, a more human rights centred approach could have been taken. This could have left the embryos to be utilised by couples who are not otherwise able to do so naturally with the other party shorn of any legal responsibility for them.

I'd disagree. To come at it from a human rights centred approach as you say, suggests that the frozen embryos also have rights and those rights supercede those of the parents.

I think the ruling in this case was the correct one. The couple made a very clear cut decision that the embryos were not to be used in the case of divorce and that they only wanted to have children together if they were married. The divorce happened so the contract came into play.


To suggest that the embryos could be used by another couple, would imply that the court would over rule either parents right to the embryos or control over their own DNA. It would mean that the embryos could be used against the wishes of either parent in treatment for another IVF couple. If the use of one of those embryos resulted in the birth of a baby, then the couple that contributed the egg and sperm would become biological parents to a child they did not agree to have, and also would not have any rights to. I don't see how that could be an improvement to the situation for either biological parent. The partner who didn't want to become a parent would still be a parent, but with no rights, and the one that did want to be a parent would also be a parent, but with no rights, and if they weren't allowed to use the embryo it doesn't make sense to let someone else use it.

It could also call into question the ownership of all frozen embryos that are not used by the biological couples from whose sperm and egg they were conceived. At what point do they no longer have control over their own DNA?


If a couple wanted to donate unused embryos to another couple they could include that in any contract drawn up between themselves or between themselves and a clinic. Personally I don't think it's a courts place to rule that an embryo not being used by a couple in accordance to a contract agreed by that couple should be made available to any other person undergoing fertility treatment unless the couple had explicitly stated that option in their existing contract.

volchitsa

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I'd disagree. To come at it from a human rights centred approach as you say, suggests that the frozen embryos also have rights and those rights supercede those of the parents.

I think the ruling in this case was the correct one. The couple made a very clear cut decision that the embryos were not to be used in the case of divorce and that they only wanted to have children together if they were married. The divorce happened so the contract came into play.


To suggest that the embryos could be used by another couple, would imply that the court would over rule either parents right to the embryos or control over their own DNA. It would mean that the embryos could be used against the wishes of either parent in treatment for another IVF couple. If the use of one of those embryos resulted in the birth of a baby, then the couple that contributed the egg and sperm would become biological parents to a child they did not agree to have, and also would not have any rights to. I don't see how that could be an improvement to the situation for either biological parent. The partner who didn't want to become a parent would still be a parent, but with no rights, and the one that did want to be a parent would also be a parent, but with no rights, and if they weren't allowed to use the embryo it doesn't make sense to let someone else use it.

It could also call into question the ownership of all frozen embryos that are not used by the biological couples from whose sperm and egg they were conceived. At what point do they no longer have control over their own DNA?


If a couple wanted to donate unused embryos to another couple they could include that in any contract drawn up between themselves or between themselves and a clinic. Personally I don't think it's a courts place to rule that an embryo not being used by a couple in accordance to a contract agreed by that couple should be made available to any other person undergoing fertility treatment unless the couple had explicitly stated that option in their existing contract.

I think you have a good point, anywhere except Ireland. Why doesn't the court take the same view towards frozen embryos as it does to implanted ones? What's the difference as far as the embryo is concerned?

The Randy Riverbeast

Merrion wrote: »

In Ireland it would be illegal to destroy those embryos.

Nope, as long as it isn't inside a woman it has no rights.

gctest50

they should have donated them to research

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT]

Skoop

volchitsa wrote: »

I think you have a good point, anywhere except Ireland. Why doesn't the court take the same view towards frozen embryos as it does to implanted ones? What's the difference as far as the embryo is concerned?

In Ireland? The court takes a different view to the two as one is legislated for and one isn't. The eight amendment makes specific reference to "due regard to the equal right to life of the mother". So the eight amendment has been ruled as envisaging a balancing act between mothers right to life and embryos right to life. There's no balancing act in this regard when it comes to un-implanted embryos. And so no legislative protection of the embryos right to life.

NachoBusiness

She has some cheek: "violating her rights to procreate". Would ya feck off.

Why would she even want to have the child of the man she is no longer with? Especially given his strenuous objections to it. Seems a very controlling thing to want to do. Something very creepy about it. Wonder how she would feel if he had the snip in the interim, got married and him and his new wife wanted to use the embryos.

ceadaoin.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

She has some cheek: "violating her rights to procreate". Would ya feck off.

Why would she even want to have the child of the man she is no longer with? Especially given his strenuous objections to it. Seems a very controlling thing to want to do. Something very creepy about it. Wonder how she would feel if he had the snip in the interim, got married and him and his new wife wanted to use the embryos.

It says in the article that they froze the embryos before she underwent treatment for breast cancer which was expected to leave her infertile. Also, she is 46, she has no other chance to have children. It's not creepy or controlling at all. I don't think it can be compared to the example you gave. Vasectomies can be reversed and I can't imagine a new wife being too keen on carrying and giving birth to the genetic children of her husband and his first wife.

I suppose the lesson could be if you're a woman and you know you want kids, don't wait until your 40s to have them.

Given that they both signed the agreement stating that the embryos would be destroyed in the case of divorce then I don't see any other way the case could have gone.

NachoBusiness

ceadaoin. wrote: »

It says in the article that they froze the embryos before she underwent treatment for breast cancer which was expected to leave her infertile. She probably has no other chance to have children. It's not creepy or controlling at all.

Which is why I said, 'if he had the snip in the interim' as then he wouldn't be able to have any more children either.

Do you think she'd be singing the same tune if he couldn't have kids of his own and wanted to use those embryos (either with a new wife or a surrogate) and raise her children without her? She'd be cool with that you think? Not a chance. The court gave this nonsense more respect than it deserved. Open and shut case for me. She signed the contract agreeing the embryos should be destroyed if they divorced. Next.

ceadaoin.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Which is why I said, 'if he had the snip in the interim' as then he wouldn't be able to have any more children either.

Do you think she'd be singing the same tune if he couldn't have kids of his own and wanted to use those embryos (either with a new wife or a surrogate) and raise her children without her? She'd be cool with that you think? Not a chance. The court gave this nonsense more respect than it deserved. Open and shut case for me. She signed the contract agreeing the embryos should be destroyed if they divorced. Next.

Vasectomies are reversible.

Anyway, she signed the agreement. As you say, open and shut case.

jonon9

I may get slack for this but they are just embryos nothing more if I was in that situation I would want to destroyed.

Samaris

Contract was contract. Maybe one could argue that embryos, because of their "potential" should not be subject to destruction on the basis of a contract, but if it's going to get to that level of technical vs morality, maybe they shouldn't be fertilised and then frozen in the first place /shrug

Either way, whatever about future cases, this one seems to be pretty plain.

rainbowtrout

Given that they had a divorce clause written into their contract she should have frozen some eggs and some embryos and had the clause read 'in the event of divorce all existing embryos will be destroyed. The wife will retain sole rights to use the frozen eggs with any future partner or with an anonymous donor who is not her ex husband'

Given the prevalence of divorce and how easy it is to obtain one in America they had already considered that it could happen having out the clause in the contract. Freezing some unfertilised eggs instead of just embryos would have allowed for this issue.

volchitsa

Skoop wrote: »

In Ireland? The court takes a different view to the two as one is legislated for and one isn't. The eight amendment makes specific reference to "due regard to the equal right to life of the mother". So the eight amendment has been ruled as envisaging a balancing act between mothers right to life and embryos right to life. There's no balancing act in this regard when it comes to un-implanted embryos. And so no legislative protection of the embryos right to life.

So basically because unimplanted embryos are not capable of killing someone, they have zero rights?

Skoop

volchitsa wrote: »

So basically because unimplanted embryos are not capable of killing someone, they have zero rights?

I don't think you're really confused. I don't think you're that dense.

ALiasEX

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Vasectomies are reversible.

Anyway, she signed the agreement. As you say, open and shut case.

Reversal doesn't always work.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

I think you have a good point, anywhere except Ireland. Why doesn't the court take the same view towards frozen embryos as it does to implanted ones? What's the difference as far as the embryo is concerned?

Because they aren't implanted in a woman's body, they're frozen in a cannister with zero chance to develop any further.

volchitsa wrote: »

So basically because unimplanted embryos are not capable of killing someone, they have zero rights?

What rights would you like them to have exactly?

Capt'n Midnight

rainbowtrout wrote: »

At what point do they no longer have control over their own DNA?

Oddly enough until recently none of us had control over our own DNA.

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/testing/genepatents

On June 13, 2013, in the case of the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that human genes cannot be patented in the U.S. because DNA is a “product of nature.” The Court decided that because nothing new is created when discovering a gene, there is no intellectual property to protect, so patents cannot be granted. Prior to this ruling, more than 4,300 human genes were patented. The Supreme Court’s decision invalidated those gene patents, making the genes accessible for research and for commercial genetic testing.

volchitsa

These are both making the same point, so perhaps you'll excuse the combined reply.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because they aren't implanted in a woman's body, they're frozen in a cannister with zero chance to develop any further.

Only because a person did that to them though. They still have their inherent capacity to grow.

Using the same line of thought, if I knocked you out, would that give me the right to do something to you because you were unconscious and thus hadn't objected? Clearly not. You retain the same right to give or withhold consent that you had when you were conscious, so the only things I can do to you in that situation must be things that are in your interest. Like defrosting and implanting an embryo to restore it to its natural state is presumably in its interests. But killing it??

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What rights would you like them to have exactly?

Only the same right to life that a non-implanted embryo has. Or an explanation of why there's a difference - because normally in law (and in life), where a person is doesn't change their nature.

Skoop wrote: »

I don't think you're really confused. I don't think you're that dense.

Well, let's assume maybe I am then.

I don't think I'm all that dense either, but I've thought about this a good bit, and it's a genuine puzzler to me. TBH, I suspect that it's because I've thought about it that the incoherence of the legislative status of embryos has become so clear to me.

But if there's something really really obvious that I'm missing out, I'd very much like to hear the explanation. Genuinely.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

These are both making the same point, so perhaps you'll excuse the combined reply.
Only because a person did that to them though. They still have their inherent capacity to grow.

I have to admit volchista, it's a bit odd to hear you using the 'every sperm is sacred' line of argument to argue for the right to life pf frozen embryos? They aren't implanted, so destroying them doesn't conflict with Irish legislation.

Using the same line of thought, if I knocked you out, would that give me the right to do something to you because you were unconscious and thus hadn't objected? Clearly not. You retain the same right to give or withhold consent that you had when you were conscious, so the only things I can do to you in that situation must be things that are in your interest. Like defrosting and implanting an embryo to restore it to its natural state is presumably in its interests. But killing it??

Embryos aren't sentient beings. They don't even have the potential to become sentiment beings if they are kept frozen. If it isn't implanted, then it's very difficult to argue for the destruction of cells that have no sentience whatsoever.

Only the same right to life that a non-implanted embryo has. Or an explanation of why there's a difference - because normally in law (and in life), where a person is doesn't change their nature.

Why there's a difference between an embryo before implantation, and an embryo after implantation? The difference is implantation obviously, which means that now it's protected by Irish law, and not before. You know an embryo isn't a person, it has only the potential to become a person, otherwise you're back to your 'every sperm is sacred' argument, and that's quite a turnaround from previous threads on abortion where you've said you were pro-choice.

You're now arguing for the right to life of an embryo that hasn't even been implanted?

Well, let's assume maybe I am then.

I don't think I'm all that dense either, but I've thought about this a good bit, and it's a genuine puzzler to me. TBH, I suspect that it's because I've thought about it that the incoherence of the legislative status of embryos has become so clear to me.

But if there's something really really obvious that I'm missing out, I'd very much like to hear the explanation. Genuinely.

The difference is the embryos were never implanted. Only embryos which are implanted are protected by Irish law.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have to admit volchista, it's a bit odd to hear you using the 'every sperm is sacred' line of argument to argue for the right to life pf frozen embryos? They aren't implanted, so destroying them doesn't conflict with Irish legislation.

Embryos aren't sentient beings. They don't even have the potential to become sentiment beings if they are kept frozen. If it isn't implanted, then it's very difficult to argue for the destruction of cells that have no sentience whatsoever.

Only the same right to life that a non-implanted embryo has. Or an explanation of why there's a difference - because normally in law (and in life), where a person is doesn't change their nature.

Why there's a difference between an embryo before implantation, and an embryo after implantation? The difference is implantation obviously, which means that now it's protected by Irish law, and not before. You know an embryo isn't a person, it has only the potential to become a person, otherwise you're back to your 'every sperm is sacred' argument, and that's quite a turnaround from previous threads on abortion where you've said you were pro-choice.

You're now arguing for the right to life of an embryo that hasn't even been implanted?

The difference is the embryos were never implanted. Only embryos which are implanted are protected by Irish law.

I realize what the law says. I'm saying it doesn't actually make sense. It claims that women's health may be permanently harmed because an embryo has a right to life greater than her right to health, and yet that same embryo, before it's implanted, had no right to life at all.

You can keep repeating that the law says that's ok, but it really isn't logical. What exactly is this right to life of the implanted embryo based on? Implantation is only a change of place, not a fundamental change in the nature of the embryo.

You've made exactly zero effort to reply to that factual inconsistency, and instead fallen back on "the law says", but a law can be changed - so would that change your views on the nature of an embryo?

Oh and if your argument is now "sentience" then I'd find that more sensible. Oh but that isn't the law, is it? So you use something that isn't part of the law to justify a law that doesn't use that concept at all

You can't make a case then, apparently, and are reduced to inventing explanations that don't even correspond to what the law actually says.

okay, got that.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

I realize what the law says. I'm saying it doesn't actually make sense. It claims that women's health may be permanently harmed because an embryo has a right to life greater than her right to health, and yet that same embryo, before it's implanted, had no right to life at all.

If you think that's what the law says, then you really don't realise what the law says at all. I understand why you would interpret it that way though, but it doesn't help. It only confuses issues.

You can keep repeating that the law says that's ok, but it really isn't logical. What exactly is this right to life of the implanted embryo based on? Implantation is only a change of place, not a fundamental change in the nature of the embryo.

You've made exactly zero effort to reply to that factual inconsistency, and instead fallen back on "the law says", but a law can be changed - so would that change your views on the nature of an embryo?

Oh and if your argument is now "sentience" then I'd find that more sensible. Oh but that isn't the law, is it? So you use something that isn't part of the law to justify a law that doesn't use that concept at all

My argument was never about sentience. Look back on your own post where you're referring to an embryo as a person. You're having a laugh surely?

You can't make a case then, apparently, and are reduced to inventing explanations that don't even correspond to what the law actually says.

okay, got that.

You're the person inventing what the law says here, of course I'm never going to be able to argue against that, and I know you're well familiar with the law already, but you're using a very flimsy interpretation of it to equate two completely different scenarios.

rainbowtrout

volchitsa wrote: »

You can keep repeating that the law says that's ok, but it really isn't logical. What exactly is this right to life of the implanted embryo based on? Implantation is only a change of place, not a fundamental change in the nature of the embryo.

But that change of place is key to the survival and development of the embryo. In the environment of the uterus if successful implantation takes place an embryo can develop into a viable foetus. In a cannister of liquid nitrogen it will never be able to do that, and until scientists develop a way of sustaining an embryo for 9 months to full development without the implantation of the embryo in a living woman's uterus, then that embryo will go no further than the freezer.

That change of place is the difference, it creates a fundamental change allowing the embryo to develop. Something an embryo sitting in a petri dish in a lab will never be able to do.

seamus

Manach wrote: »

a more human rights centred approach could have been taken

The humans rights centered approach was taken. The court agreed that husband had the human right to his own reproductive choices and couldn't be railroaded into it by a court or another party. Allowing the embryos to be kept and later implanted is analogous to rape.

Fine if both parties agreed to donate the embryos, but if they didn't then that's their right. Being forced to donate the embryos seems like a loser for everyone.

volchitsa

rainbowtrout wrote: »

But that change of place is key to the survival and development of the embryo. In the environment of the uterus if successful implantation takes place an embryo can develop into a viable foetus. In a cannister of liquid nitrogen it will never be able to do that, and until scientists develop a way of sustaining an embryo for 9 months to full development without the implantation of the embryo in a living woman's uterus, then that embryo will go no further than the freezer.

That change of place is the difference, it creates a fundamental change allowing the embryo to develop. Something an embryo sitting in a petri dish in a lab will never be able to do.

And yet if the requirement for an embryo to have an inherent right to life is that it must have the capacity to develop, why is there any issue with FFA, or indeed with inevitable miscarriage such as Savita Halappanavar was suffering? She could have just had a termination.

rainbowtrout

volchitsa wrote: »

And yet if the requirement for an embryo to have an inherent right to life is that it must have the capacity to develop, why is there any issue with FFA, or indeed with inevitable miscarriage such as Savita Halappanavar was suffering? She could have just had a termination.

Because a lot of people do not agree with abortion in this country, hence the pro-choice/pro-life debate, doctors included. Also because terminations in this country I imagine are relatively infrequent and because of the way the law is phrased, I'd say doctors err on the side of caution.

In the Savita case it was found that there were inadequate checks in monitoring her condition

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1009/479282-savita-halappanavar/

According to reports, the doctors thought she was fine so denied her request for an abortion, presumably on the grounds that abortion on request is illegal in Ireland. Once she actually miscarried the foetus was removed from her uterus but it was too late for her because of her infection which had not yet been diagnosed.

Don't know why you are dragging abortion debates into this, when it is about the right to use frozen embryos after a marriage breakup.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

And yet if the requirement for an embryo to have an inherent right to life is that it must have the capacity to develop, why is there any issue with FFA, or indeed with inevitable miscarriage such as Savita Halappanavar was suffering? She could have just had a termination.

You're still ignoring the fact that the difference is in implantation. It's not just the 'location' of the embryo, whether it's frozen in a cannister, or implanted in the womb of a woman (I know you'd be disgusted if a woman's body were simply reduced to 'a location' if this were a discussion about abortion), but it's not a discussion about abortion, because nobody was ever pregnant in the first place, so the 8th amendment, nor the POLDPA simply doesn't apply.

The embryo only has a right to life, when it is implanted in the womb of a woman, and because these embryos were never implanted in a woman, they could be destroyed according to what the couple had already agreed. This woman wanted to become pregnant using the embryos that her and her former partner had contributed to, thereby ignoring their previously agreed arrangement.

It has nothing to do with abortion or the termination of a pregnancy because there was no pregnancy, and no implantation ever took place.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're still ignoring the fact that the difference is in implantation. It's not just the 'location' of the embryo, whether it's frozen in a cannister, or implanted in the womb of a woman (I know you'd be disgusted if a woman's body were simply reduced to 'a location' if this were a discussion about abortion), but it's not a discussion about abortion, because nobody was ever pregnant in the first place, so the 8th amendment, nor the POLDPA simply doesn't apply.

The embryo only has a right to life, when it is implanted in the womb of a woman, and because these embryos were never implanted in a woman, they could be destroyed according to what the couple had already agreed. This woman wanted to become pregnant using the embryos that her and her former partner had contributed to, thereby ignoring their previously agreed arrangement.

It has nothing to do with abortion or the termination of a pregnancy because there was no pregnancy, and no implantation ever took place.

So you can't make a case for a ban on abortion predicated on the embryo's inherent qualities that would give it a right to life, but only one about controlling women and deciding when they may end their pregnancies. It's just one step up from the previous ban on contraception, in other words.

Thanks for the confirmation of what I've long suspected.

BTW, a womb is indeed just a location. Nothing disgusting in saying that, any more than that the brain is a natural computing machine.

What I do find disgusting however is your reduction of the woman to just her womb.

volchitsa

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Because a lot of people do not agree with abortion in this country, hence the pro-choice/pro-life debate, doctors included. Also because terminations in this country I imagine are relatively infrequent and because of the way the law is phrased, I'd say doctors err on the side of caution.

In the Savita case it was found that there were inadequate checks in monitoring her condition

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1009/479282-savita-halappanavar/

According to reports, the doctors thought she was fine so denied her request for an abortion, presumably on the grounds that abortion on request is illegal in Ireland. Once she actually miscarried the foetus was removed from her uterus but it was too late for her because of her infection which had not yet been diagnosed.

Don't know why you are dragging abortion debates into this, when it is about the right to use frozen embryos after a marriage breakup.

you're completely missing the question, which was about what the embryo's right to life is predicated on, whether within the womb or without.

Since there's no qualitative difference in the embryo before and after implantation, your claim means that it's only the change of location that grants the embryo its legal right to life. Then you said that this is because the embryo must fulfill another criterion on top of being an embryo, it must be an embryo that has the capacity to develop without further human interference.

Hence my mention of Savita Halappanavar, not to hear all the explanations all over again about why she needed more testing, but as just one example that we all know of where the embryo, or in her case fetus, had no hope of survival, and yet no-one has suggested that Dr Astbury could legally have given her a surgical termination as soon as that diagnosis was made. Have they?

So you are wrong to claim that the embryo needs to fulfill the criterion of potential viability, that does not apply.

So there is still no consistent explanation for the difference in rights granted by the law to an unimplanted embryo and an implanted one.

Except one of maintaining control over pregnant women's wombs.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

So you can't make a case for a ban on abortion predicated on the embryo's inherent qualities that would give it a right to life, but only one about controlling women and deciding when they may end their pregnancies. It's just one step up from the previous ban on contraception, in other words.

Thanks for the confirmation of what I've long suspected.

What? That I'm pro-choice with regard to abortion? Why would I want to make a case for a ban on abortion when I don't agree with the legislation as it stands?

But this case has nothing to do with abortion, so you need to stop trying to shoe-horn it into the discussion. An abortion is a termination of a pregnancy. No pregnancy took place here, no implantation even took place here, so that is why embryos that were never implanted in the womb could be destroyed, and that is the inherent difference between an embryo that was never implanted, and one that is.

volchitsa wrote: »

BTW, a womb is indeed just a location. Nothing disgusting in saying that, any more than that the brain is a natural computing machine.

A woman's womb isn't just a location. What sort of nonsense is that? It's reducing a woman's worth down to that of a breeder and incubator?

That's the "pro-life" extremist nutter stance. It is disgusting IMO, just as disgusting as reducing the brain down to "a natural computing machine". It's utterly daft reductionist nonsense, and I'd expect that sort of argument from a simpleton tbh, and I know you are far from a simpleton, so I don't understand why you're even trying to do that, notwithstanding the fact that it has nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with this case.

What I do find disgusting however is your reduction of the woman to just her womb.

I don't know where or what you're reading at all, that you were able to conclude that from anything I've ever posted, let alone the post you quoted! I don't even know what you're trying to argue any more tbh.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What? That I'm pro-choice with regard to abortion? Why would I want to make a case for a ban on abortion when I don't agree with the legislation as it stands?

But this case has nothing to do with abortion, so you need to stop trying to shoe-horn it into the discussion. An abortion is a termination of a pregnancy. No pregnancy took place here, no implantation even took place here, so that is why embryos that were never implanted in the womb could be destroyed, and that is the inherent difference between an embryo that was never implanted, and one that is.

I didn't say you wanted to make that point, I said that's what your argument boils down to, whether you wanted it to or not. Because that's effectively what you said : the embryo has no inherent right to life, so the ban on abortion cannot be based on such a right. It requires a pregnancy for this "right" to exist - because all that's really banned, according to your own point, is for a woman to end her pregnancy. The embryo itself has no rights, or it would have them no matter where it was. Which is all I meant about location, before you went off on you mad rant.

This :

A woman's womb isn't just a location. What sort of nonsense is that? It's reducing a woman's worth down to that of a breeder and incubator?

Only to someone who thinks a woman is the equivalent of her womb. I don't.

That's the "pro-life" extremist nutter stance. It is disgusting IMO, just as disgusting as reducing the brain down to "a natural computing machine". It's utterly daft reductionist nonsense, and I'd expect that sort of argument from a simpleton tbh, and I know you are far from a simpleton, so I don't understand why you're even trying to do that, notwithstanding the fact that it has nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with this case.

I don't know where or what you're reading at all, that you were able to conclude that from anything I've ever posted, let alone the post you quoted! I don't even know what you're trying to argue any more tbh.

I'm saying that a person is a lot more than the sum of their organs. I don't think there's anything shocking in that, but you keep conflating the woman and her womb. That's deeply offensive to women. As it would be to men if we objected to a comparison between a man's sperm production capacity and some sort of factory on the grounds that it was deeply insulting to men.

It isn't. It may be a poor analogy, but it isn't insulting to men - because a man is not just his capacity to produce sperm.

So calling a womb (not a woman) a location is not insulting to women.
It's actually weird that you could go off on such a rant and not even see that crucial difference. Unless you really do see women as merely their reproductive capacities.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

<snip>

That's deeply offensive to women.

<snip>

So calling a womb (not a woman) a location is not insulting to women.

I won't even bother addressing the rest of your post as I don't think there's any point but to say this much -

Thankfully, you do not speak for, nor can you speak for, nor do you represent, nor can you represent, women. You can only speak for yourself as regards what is or isn't insulting or offensive to you personally.

I'm out now as you're just going to keep talking about abortion, and the case in the opening post, not only has it nothing to do with abortion, but it hasn't even got anything to do with Irish law as it was a case in the States.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I won't even bother addressing the rest of your post as I don't think there's any point but to say this much -

Thankfully, you do not speak for, nor can you speak for, nor do you represent, nor can you represent, women. You can only speak for yourself as regards what is or isn't insulting or offensive to you personally

If you think that it could be construed as offensive to women to describe a womb as the location where an embryo implants and grows, you really have an issue with human biology, and I'm afraid I can't help you there.

A woman is a lot more than her womb. That's a simple fact.

I'm out now as you're just going to keep talking about abortion, and the case in the opening post, not only has it nothing to do with abortion, but it hasn't even got anything to do with Irish law as it was a case in the States.

I realize that, but I joined in after someone else right at the start, post 4 or 5 iirc, suggested that our legislation on the right to life of the embryo meant that this could not happen in Ireland. So I'm far from the only person to recognize the legal inconsistency.

Thelomen Toblackai

seamus wrote: »

The humans rights centered approach was taken. The court agreed that husband had the human right to his own reproductive choices and couldn't be railroaded into it by a court or another party. Allowing the embryos to be kept and later implanted is analogous to rape.

Fine if both parties agreed to donate the embryos, but if they didn't then that's their right. Being forced to donate the embryos seems like a loser for everyone.

Not that I agree with the other poster but the court did not agree the husband had the right to his own reproductive choices. The judge ruled that the contract was binding and the embryos must be destroyed.

In fact she actually made reference to the fact that she found it disturbing that in this case cold legal principles dictated the fate of nascent life.