Wher does human life begin?

metrovelvet

No Im not. Im just trying to see where you are with this. So its a size issue for you?

metrovelvet

Asiaprod wrote:

Yes, as has already been mentioned they are alive, but they have no life and will continue to have no life,

What? Can you explain?

Ultimately, this decision is about who has sovreignty over these embryos. On another note, could the "father" "doner" whatever, also take them and hire a surrogate if he wanted to do so?

IMO it was a mutual decision to create them, so it has to be a mutual decision to go forward with them and a mutual decision to destroy them. As for the rights of an embryo? [shrug] I have no idea.

Dades

metrovelvet wrote:

No Im not. Im just trying to see where you are with this. So its a size issue for you?

I think this might be directed at me...

I suppose it is a size issue in a way. Don't ask me where I stand with abortion - I just don't know. But I believe it is ridiculous to give a fertilised egg in a petri dish the same rights as a human.

And that's not even taking into account the consequences of doing so.

Asiaprod

metrovelvet wrote:

What? Can you explain?

Sure, they have not developed into a child, they do not eat, sleep, run, play. They have not come to term, which I think the Atheist many have been eluding to. As long as they do not come to term but remain frozen, they are alive, but have no life. If one were a believer in reincarnation or rebirth where would these embryos be, they would be, in Christian terms, in Limbo.

Ultimately, this decision is about who has sovereignty over these embryos.

I got a problem with this, I am not sure anyone has the right to say they have sovereignty here. Kids are made mutually and with love, and there is no apparent love between these two adults. Think about this. Also think about how you would explain all this to any child produced from these frozen embryos.

On another note, could the "father" "doner" whatever, also take them and hire a surrogate if he wanted to do so?

Yes he could, the question is does he want to. Again, a child is conceived through love and this child if born will always be a bond between the intended original parents. Would both parents have equal visiting rights? Would the original wife be happy with this arrangement, it was she who initiated this action based on the fact that she wanted kids. I would be very impressed if she were to do this and agree for the husband to have the child.

IMO it was a mutual decision to create them, so it has to be a mutual decision to go forward with them and a mutual decision to destroy them. As for the rights of an embryo? [shrug] I have no idea.

Exactly, no need to be humble here. You are correct that they must decide together. Luckily for me, since I am one of those persuasion that get to keep coming back till I get it right, it is a relatively easy decision. Since these embryos are not going to be born through the intended parent, and since those intended parents cannot come to a compromise, I would vote to have them destroyed so they can return once again in happier circumstances

metrovelvet

Asiaprod wrote:

Sure, they have not developed into a child, they do not eat, sleep, run, play. They have not come to term, which I think the Atheist many have been eluding to. As long as they do not come to term but remain frozen, they are alive, but have no life. If one were a believer in reincarnation or rebirth where would these embryos be, they would be, in Christian terms, in Limbo.

I got a problem with this, I am not sure anyone has the right to say they have sovereignty here. Kids are made mutually and with love, and there is no apparent love between these two adults. Think about this. Also think about how you would explain all this to any child produced from these frozen embryos.

But you said in your first paragraph that they are not children. These embryos were at one point made with love and some science thrown into boot. Additionally they were made with lots and lots of money. [And not all conceptions are made through love and happy couples btw.]

How would you explain it to them? By explaining it.

You dont know anyone who was an invtro baby? I know several.Give them some credit. You think they carry around all the shame and judgement that some cultures project onto them? No. They are out living their lives like the rest of us.

Asiaprod

metrovelvet wrote:

These embryos were at one point made with love and some science thrown into boot.
Additionally they were made with lots and lots of money.
And not all conceptions are made through love and happy couples btw.
How would you explain it to them? By explaining it.
I know several.Give them some credit.
You think they carry around all the shame and judgement that some cultures project onto them?

Lets agree to disagree cause I honestly do not understand your stance. You might consider putting it to a poll if that is allowed

Dades

Asiaprod wrote:

Lets agree to disagree cause I honestly do not understand your stance.

Likewise!

FYI some very close friends of mine have successfully used IVF. I just would hate to see it's future is threatened by those who claim all test tube embryos have a "right to life".

metrovelvet

I dont have a stance.

Im trying to figure out yours. Im also trying to figure out my own. This is so complicated, I think its ok to be confused and in a place where Im working it out.

You say is alive but it doesnt have a life. I dont get that. One of you says its according to size, the other one says it has a life when it eats, sleeps, walks talks and runs.

ISAW

Asiaprod wrote:

In general, when one give consent to something it is a reaction to the situation going on at that moment. You make it sound like his agreement was a life long agreement. This I do not buy.

whether you buy it or not that is the law! How can you make a deal with someone and then later claim you didnt make that deal? Even in a divorce case (and I do not think the couple is divorces) you do not say the marriage never exiated and a contract was not made! And having a child is a life long committment. This was argeed to by both of them.

Any future attempts at implantation would need to be discussed and agreed upon once again.

But this was NOT in the original contract was it? And if it was would it be it binding or ultra vires?

It is IMO not a legal issue, its a personal one. Until science finds a way to unfertilized the eggs, if the male says no thats it. I may be wrong on this, would not surprise me, when I went to school we were taught that the life component was deemed to be the male sperm. Has this changed?
[/quote}

Has this what? Has it f**k! The X case the C case two referenda and a plethora of debates must have passed you by! The point is iof the court rules the fertilised egg is "unborn" then constutional issues DO arise.

As to demanding the man support the child for life and fund it up to eighteen, that is absolutely ridiculous.

indeed. and also absolutely legal. He will be the ather after all. How can he support his earlier child and not support the later one which was concieved at the same time? No law deals with this.

Any sympathy I may have had for this woman and her predicament went strait out the window when I read that bit.

the law isnt about who you feel should win. thats called natural justice. Rare in courts. In courts you get the law.

ISAW

The Atheist wrote:

I think this might be directed at me...

I suppose it is a size issue in a way. Don't ask me where I stand with abortion - I just don't know. But I believe it is ridiculous to give a fertilised egg in a petri dish the same rights as a human.

And that's not even taking into account the consequences of doing so.

Ah! But youmiss the point. th point is whether a fertilised egg is unborn!
chilren do not have the same rights as adults. But the unborn do have a constitutional right to life in the constitution! If the fertilised egg is "unborn" then the soverignty of the parents does not come into it! the right to life must be accepted.

ISAW

metrovelvet wrote:

I dont have a stance.

Im trying to figure out yours. Im also trying to figure out my own. This is so complicated, I think its ok to be confused and in a place where Im working it out.

You say is alive but it doesnt have a life. I dont get that. One of you says its according to size, the other one says it has a life when it eats, sleeps, walks talks and runs.

The constitution says the unborn has a right to life. the question here is whether a fertilised egg is "unborn". If it is not then when does it become "unborn" ? after implantation?

there is also a host of other legal conundrums. If it isnt unborn then does it become the property of someone? Of who? If it is destroyes then who makes that decision. If the decistion is made then is there a protocol for destruction? should ther be a funeral? The theosophy on this is as unclear as the law.

Dades

ISAW wrote:

The constitution says the unborn has a right to life. the question here is whether a fertilised egg is "unborn". If it is not then when does it become "unborn" ? after implantation?

If even then. Certainly not before. The constitution is powerless on this topic anyhow.

I wonder if the concept of a "soul" was not skulking in the background of this debate would people be so concerned about rejected, un-implanted embryos.

metrovelvet

Yes I think the concept of soul gets in the way. We dont need it to talk about life anyway. We know we are alive - with or without a soul.

So in the Irish constitution does life begin in the womb? Or is it just down to the point of conception?

Dades

metrovelvet wrote:

So in the Irish constitution does life begin in the womb? Or is it just down to the point of conception?

Whether life begins in the womb or not is not in the constitution. Instead it's down to a legal interpretation of "unborn" to decide whether or not the constitution is relevant.

Of course the problem is there is, and may never be, concensus on this issue - and any legal definition will be wrong in some peoples eyes.

ISAW

The Atheist wrote:

Whether life begins in the womb or not is not in the constitution. Instead it's down to a legal interpretation of "unborn" to decide whether or not the constitution is relevant.

Of course the problem is there is, and may never be, concensus on this issue - and any legal definition will be wrong in some peoples eyes.

Not quite. forst of all as to a soul getting in the way. some believers migh well believe that a human being can be alive but have no soul. they certainly believe it of other animals. Say for example a person in a coma. yet whether they believe that or not it does not stop a deal of medical law and ethics applying as to whether one can turn off a machine or whether one can use another machine to kill them.

I referred to the "unborn" because that is actually mentioned in the constution and should a fertilised egg be determined to be unborn then very certain courses of action are denied to the parents and other coursed of action must happen.

But this does not remove the possibility of the court introducing unennumerated rights i.e. ones not actually written down. this has happened on sever occasions in the past. they may for example state that a fertilised egg has a right not to be owned by any person. that would have vast implications in the case in hand.

So it is not down to a legal interpretation of "unborn" nor does the "consensus" matter since that is part of the reason courts exist - to dismiss consensus and trial by media and make decisions.

Asiaprod

Well, the result is in and I for one agree with it.

The High Court has ruled in favour of the estranged husband in the frozen embryo case.
Mr Justice Brian McGovern has found that the man did not give his consent in 2002 for the release of three frozen embryos and their implantation in his wife's uterus.

In his judgement today, he found that, when the three embryos were frozen, there was no agreement between the husband and wife as to what was to be done with them.

He held that the husband certainly did not give his consent, when signing documents for IVF treatment, for the remaining embryos to be implanted in his wife's uterus in the future and only agreed to them being used if the first implantation failed.

In concluding that this case, therefore, would go on, Mr Justice McGovern said there were public and constitutional law issues which he ruled must be heard together.

He said a number of questions arise as a result of this case, such as whether embryos are unborn and whether a person can be forced to become a parent against their will.

Dades

Asiaprod wrote:

Well, the result is in and I for one agree with it.

I concur with that.

However, it seems now is when the real fun begins.