Judge Sentences Embryos to Death - Against Mother's Wishes

[Granite]

At what point in the development process does the combination of egg and sperm become a "small child"?

They don't seem to make this distinction.

 

[alwight]

They wouldn't store dead embryos. There'd be no point in implanting them. They are made up of living cells. This is objectively true.

I'd agree that a frozen embryo might be reanimated but the word "living" I used doesn't really apply imo, and clearly it isn't performing a living function of any kind or developing.

Except that's the exact situation the husband wanted not to happen. If any of the embryos was allowed to develop inside a woman, he would be "compelled to become a parent." The judge said he has the "right" to not allow that to happen.

But that was the deal in advance to my knowledge, they would both have to consent at the time, which he didn't, so tough.

Any lawyer could easily argue that his own client has this same disgusting "right."

I don't know what you mean by "disgusting", what was disgusting? If this had been a normal conception then male consent can be presumed.

If, as you say, having the embryo in the woman's body would automatically relieve him of all ownership, then the court would not have had to rule as they did. She would never have been able to "compel him to become a parent," if the moment the embryos were implanted, he ceased to be associated with them.

But a normal conception wouldn't relieve him of anything.
If otoh she had acquired and implanted the embryo without his consent then would be a legal matter for the courts to rule on.

 

[glassjester]

I don't know what you mean by "disgusting", what was disgusting?

The "right" of a man who's willfully fathered five embryos, demanding that they get killed, against the will of the mother, because he refuses to be "compelled to become a parent."

If this had been a normal conception then male consent can be presumed.

As opposed to this case? Did he not consent to the conception of these five embryos?

 

[Tinark]

How long before courts order abortions, against mothers' wishes, so that men can't be "compelled to become a parent" ?

As soon as a woman's right to choose what may or may not remain in her own body is taken away.

 

[Eeset]

Oh gosh, the article says there are 4 million frozen embryos in the US. Do you think they have souls?

 

[glassjester]

Oh gosh, the article says there are 4 million frozen embryos in the US. Do you think they have souls?

Do you even know what that means?

 

[shagster01]

man likes to play God

would hate to be those "justices" on Judgment Day.. They think they are going 2 get away with something...


ha ha... What I have learned in studying Catholicism is that no one gets away with ANYTHING



pay now or pay later but u WILL pay...


yes, there is a Purgatory... but that is only for those who have TRULY followed Christ... not many of those around... so looks like Hell will always be crowded



___

You don't think that freezing embryos for later use is a form of playing God?

 

[quip]

From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...zen-embryos-even-though-she-may-be-infertile/




What a mess.

How long before courts order abortions, against mothers' wishes, so that men can't be "compelled to become a parent" ?

Just your basic contract dispute. This aptly demonstrates that the embroys in question are joint property, bound by a contract ....not independent entities (persons).

 

[glassjester]

You don't think that freezing embryos for later use is a form of playing God?

Yes, of course it is. But that doesn't justify killing them.

If someone put me in suspended animation against my will, they've wronged me. If they imprisoned me in suspended animation and then they kill me, then they've wronged me twice, no?

 

[glassjester]

Just your basic contract dispute. This aptly demonstrates that the embroys in question are joint property, bound by a contract ....not independent entities (persons).

What makes them not joint property if they're in the mother's womb?

Also, on what legal basis can someone destroy joint property, when the other owner does not agree to it?

I'm pretty sure if I purposely destroy a car that I jointly own with my wife, I've committed a crime.

 

[shagster01]

Yes, of course it is. But that doesn't justify killing them.

If someone put me in suspended animation against my will, they've wronged me. If they imprisoned me in suspended animation and then they kill me, then they've wronged me twice, no?

Are you an embryo?

 

[glassjester]

Are you an embryo?

I was for a while. I'm glad my parents didn't imprison me or kill me.

 

[quip]

What makes them not joint property if they're in the mother's womb?

mom's bod.

Also, on what legal basis can someone destroy joint property, when the other owner does not agree to it?

A binding contract...signed by both parties.

I'm pretty sure if I purposely destroy a car that I jointly own with my wife, I've committed a crime.

I'm pretty sure as well...being an unfrozen car retains some form of utility.

 

[glassjester]

mom's bod.

And then it would be alright for the man to be "compelled to become a parent" ?

A binding contract...signed by both parties.

The judge could have absolved the father of any responsibility, financial or legal, to the embryos. The judge could have granted full ownership and responsibility to the wife.

This is done with virtually all other jointly owned property, after a divorce.

Instead the judge orders their death. Ridiculous.

I'm pretty sure as well...being an unfrozen car retains some form of utility.

This makes no sense. The frozen embryos retained their utility, too. Besides, ownership is not determined by utility. Do people not own plenty of useless junk? Yet I have no right to destroy anyone's property, or jointly owned property - whether it's useless or not.

In fact, if the embryos hadn't retained their "utility" (their ability to continue to grow and develop as human organisms), then the father wouldn't have demanded their execution at all!

It is for the very fact that they did retain "utility" that the father wants them destroyed.
He wants them dead because they are his living offspring. Sick.

 

[quip]

And then it would be alright for the man to be "compelled to become a parent" ?
I don't know what you're referring to here....explain.

The judge could have absolved the father of any responsibility, financial or legal, to the embryos. The judge could have granted full ownership and responsibility to the wife.

This is done with virtually all other jointly owned property, after a divorce.

Instead the judge orders their death. Ridiculous.

Typical joint property doesn't involve the father's DNA nor could the two equitably spilt the asset. What viable choice did the judge have?

This makes no sense. The frozen embryos retained their utility, too. Besides, ownership is not determined by utility. Do people not own plenty of useless junk? Yet I have no right to destroy anyone's property, or jointly owned property - whether it's useless or not.

In fact, if the embryos hadn't retained their "utility" (their ability to continue to grow and develop as human organisms), then the father wouldn't have demanded their execution at all!

It is for the very fact that they did retain "utility" that the father wants them destroyed.

Then you're simply equivocating upon the term "utility" for analogy sake. As such, your argument is only as strong as your specious analogy allows....which isn't much.

 

[glassjester]

I don't know what you're referring to here....explain.

The judge ruled that the embryos ought to be killed because...

“[The husband's] right not to be compelled to be a parent with Lee outweighs [the wife's] right to have a biologically related child.”

Typical joint property doesn't involve the father's DNA nor could the two equitably spilt the asset. What viable choice did the judge have?

I explained the (literally!) viable choice - give sole responsibility to the mother. Why is killing the embryos the only choice?

Then you're simply equivocating upon the term "utility" for analogy sake. As such, your argument is only as strong as your specious analogy allows....which isn't much.

I can't purposely destroy property that I jointly own with my wife, against her will. Nor should any court allow it (or worse, demand it). If I don't want the joint property anymore, I can just let my wife keep it!

 

[quip]

The judge ruled that the embryos ought to be killed because...

“[The husband's] right not to be compelled to be a parent with Lee outweighs [the wife's] right to have a biologically related child.”

Relative to the contract and subjected to divorce....this is correct.

I explained the (literally!) viable choice - give sole responsibility to the mother. Why is killing the embryos the only choice?

What would the mother do with a frozen embryo....save having a child against the wishes of the ex-husband; contrary to the binding contract.

I can't purposely destroy property that I jointly own with my wife, against her will. Nor should any court allow it (or worse, demand it). If I don't want the joint property anymore, I can just let my wife keep it!

Again, the frozen embryo was an agreed upon entity created for the purposes of implantation into the wife's womb at some future date. (This is implied if not stated). There is no current "wife" status between the two, therefore the embryo has no utility per the contract agreement...wholly unlike appreciable, material, joint property. (nor does property qualify under custody rulings.)

 

[glassjester]

What would the mother do with a frozen embryo....save having a child against the wishes of the ex-husband; contrary to the binding contract.

Women have children against the wishes of the child's father all the time. If we outlaw that, do we start requiring abortions? Can men start demanding abortions for any woman they impregnate? Do these men have the right to not be "compelled to become a parent" ?

 

[quip]

Women have children against the wishes of the child's father all the time.

Though, you expect the judge to rule in her favor? /facepalm

If we outlaw that, do we start requiring abortions? Can men start demanding abortions for any woman they impregnate? Do these men have the right to not be "compelled to become a parent" ?

Outlawing? Now you're just being silly...which pretty much represents this entire thread.

This was an admittedly unique contract dispute though, a mere contract dispute nonetheless. Don't build an anti-choice mountain out of a mole hill.