Who owns a frozen embryo?

by iosaf Wed Jul 05, 2006 16:11

Mr "sperm" today had his say, to briefly recap, Mr "sperm" is the estranged husband of Mrs "egg".
Embryos made by the SIS clinic on their behalf using their eggs and sperm have been in the freezer for 4 years.
Mr "sperm" doesn't want the embryos thawed and implanted in his estranged wife's womb. & he's claiming this is a "human right".
Mrs "egg" is continuing to insist that the frozen embryos consist human life & under the Irish Constitution have a right "to life" meaning going [back] into her womb where of course only the "eggie" part of them has ever been....

As I've written above this is really really fascination stuff and stretches the Irish constitution, for a number of reasons. It touches on our "right to life" thing as well as our "estrangement / seperation / divorce & dissolution" thing. In the last years European courts with different legal systems and it must be noted without constitutional amendements on the "right to life" have seen woman take actions to have embryonic implantation after the sperm donor has died. Their argument being that the intention of the dead man to have children is included in their civil rights to assume all property at time of death. (They inherit the embryos). Interestingly some of these cases have occured in states which do not have a ban on destruction of embryonic material, which of course Ireland does as "every embryo is sacred". We could quote George Bush here "there is no such thing as a spare embyro" [2002]

Let met throw this at the astute readers, court observers & stenographers :-

Does the woman's "right" to determine her fertility and her body, that is her "right to choose" (a right not enshrined in the Irish constitution) come into this?


which is more important - Mrs Egg's right to choose? or the embryos right to life?
If the High Court declare that these embryos do have a right to life, and the SIMS clinic does it thing and with its current success rate loses at least one, possibly two - will the SIMS clinic be guilty of some type of ante-natal abortion or negligence???

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0705/embryo.html

by iosaf Wed Jul 05, 2006 18:07

How many frozen embryos are there in Ireland?
if Mrs Egg's embryos are found to have a right to life, then do not all the frozen embryos have a right to life? Who is frustrating their rights?
The Irish social and legal attitude to "inteference in the natural principle" of procreation is very similar either side of our border. Both the Irish states adopting a "right to life" principle, which betrays something very deeply in common between the equally conservative catholics of the south and presbytarians of the north. This is the global principle which is core of fundementalist occidental religious based attitudes to family planning. & when we think about it raises serious questions .-
* The RC church which supports the "right to life" also prohibits IVF. other conservative protestant religious groups do not do so, not having had a Pope Paul VI. Thus Bush made his "no such thing as a spare embryo" to a White House reception on family day filled with children born from IVF procedures. The constitutionality of IVF and the issues being opened for contemplation and future legal challenges and actions by the Mrs Egg versus Mr Sperm case are profound. For the first time we see the Irish legal debate move on from an overtly RC based position on ethics. I do not pretend to be an expert on these things, but I believe that Irish law is pretty similar to most European law in respect to parental "quasi ownership" of their children. I believe Irish law allows for a mother to surrender her child through the various adoption acts.- I believe Irish law allows for "emancipation" and to grant parents the right to allow their children marry at an age before their majority. I believe Irish law & the Irish constitution (yet again) is not up to the challenges being put by the combination of 21st century medical and scientific advances and changing society.

which brings me to this little thought :-

It is really quite incredible that no-one has yet thought to offer a "freezing unwanted embryo" service, to sidestep the prohibitions on abortion. Freezing an embryo doesn't kill it, merely puts it on ice ( or in liquid nitrogen to be precise ). If at some stage in the future the mother of that embryo wanted to decide the fate of the embryo - surely there is no legal mechanism to stop her?

Perhaps someone who does know the details of such things might tell us in the comments.

by Red Inc Wed Jul 05, 2006 19:48

Frank Fahy?

I know he owns a lot of stuff besides.

by pat c Wed Jul 05, 2006 20:47

maybe he does jointly with michael lowry. lowry is into refridgeration equipment. fahy provides the premises , lowry provides the refridgeration gear. and hey bobs your uncle. they probably have a contract to store all the frozen embryos.

maybe they store the voting machines as well.

by Chris Murray - The Unmanageables Wed Jul 05, 2006 21:19

I just thought I'd say that all responses to this article have been by boys.

What is that about?

This is not going to be popular- but.

If you trust a clinic to take your money and provide you with the necessities for
reproduction and they are signed up to some klutzy ethical based system, which is generally the case
in Ireland. it is going to get splashed allover the media. the lawyer is going to be a guy (bigger bucks, more PR clout, good case history) - The best money can buy.

Bring back the one night stand, the turkey baster and to those who genuinely grieve, I am sorry.

A woman died in the rotunda last year from a severe reaction to the treatments given to her as part of the ivf programme. take it down to gender roles, the hospitals are governed hierarchically and top-heavily by consultants who are governed by the ethics of the catholic church. Both parents are victimised by gender roles in cases such as these. Not being flip, but its not an issue of ownership is it?

The relationship is over. Surely the issue is moot.

by Gerri Wed Jul 05, 2006 23:13

Mr Sperm and Mrs Egg contribute their Sperm and Egg for the creation of an embryo. Therefore they each have contributed 50% to the resulting frozen embryos. Mr Sperm wishes for the embryos to be destroyed, arguing that it is his right not to have his property turned into children as he does not wish for any more. Mrs Egg disagrees and says these ARE her children, should not be destroyed and should be given the chance to be born, she invokes 'the right to life' a concept Irish people are perhaps too familiar with given all the debate about abortion in recent years. It seems Mr Egg is arguing for his right not to have anymore children and Mrs Egg is arguing for her right to have children, a claim they would each have equal rights to seeing as they each contributed 50% to the potential children.

Surely, when they each contributed their 50%, they were each giving an undertaking to have the above children? Surely, had there been any doubt about the above they would have had their Sperm/Egg frozen separately.

Its not like Mr Sperm could say he wished to take back his share of the property, had he created an embryo in the more usual way and it was already implanted in Mrs Egg's womb?

Just a thought...

by :-) - iosaf happy with feedback Wed Jul 05, 2006 23:38

We all seem to agree this is a very "moot" issue. Which is why it is newsworthy, & sooner or later ought get us all talking about the "constitution" again, with its notions of "the right to life" the "right to choose" &c....

But for a moment I want to bring your attention back to another "new irish legal concept" touched by all this :- our legislation on divorce.
If Mrs Egg is allowed to use the embryos against her estranged husband's wishes, she may add one more child to her brood but if she has argued for all the embryos back then why should she stop at just one child?
- she may also add three more children to her brood. It would seem very unfair if she gets the 3 embryos and only sees one to full term. Those two other embryos she claims are "brothers & sisters" & "have a right to life" going back into the freezer would seem........ "selfish" & a definite waste of our High Court's fine minds.
It also possible that each embryo will yield multiple births. So Mrs Egg might give birth to twins, or hypothetically three sets of twins - thats 6 new mouths.
Mr Sperm is currently "estranged" from Mrs Egg because he had an affair (thats considered just grounds for divorce), we may presume that this couple are going to divorce. Which will bring them back into court to see decided 2 important issues :-
* Custody of the children (the real ones with more than few dozen cells in their bodies)
* Maintainance of the children.

Now you don't need to be a leaving certificate higher maths candidate to realise quickly that the cost of maintaining 2 kids is very different from 3 kids, 6kids or our possible maximum of 8kids.

by opportunist Thu Jul 06, 2006 02:15

This Mrs Egg and Mr Sperm case is showing us the loophole to make a fortune.
Simply offer to freeze the unwanted embryos.
No sin. No ethical problem.
Women gets her right to choose.
Embryos get their right to live allbeit in suspended animation in a freezer.
Doctors get loads of dosh.
Church can't complain.

of course there would be some people who'd call this another appaling vista..,

Meanwhile the Alliance for Choice are calling for us to look again at the constitution.
( I'm just asking you to thrash it completely and write a new one )
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0705/abortion.html
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ireland/allianceforcho....html
http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/Publicat...i3Teu

by redjade - a Magyarország Report Thu Jul 06, 2006 03:01

On the Eastern side of the EUroPale in Hungary there is an interesting debate that has emerged lately.

(as I understand the issue via various translations for my benefit...)

Recently it has become legal for young women to choose to be sterilised - 18yrs and older.

The Right-Wing has jumped on this issue and has basically accused these women of performing 'national suicide.'

Actually, I doubt the number of women doing this is that large, but I think that is beside the point according the to the debate here.

The question is whether these 9-month receptacles of the next generation of Hungarians should be allowed to be irresponsible and diminish the future of the motherland just for the whims of pregnancy-free sex!

Apparently to these right-wingnuts, when you turn 18, you're not really an adult yet - or maybe you are but your uterus is still nationalised. (I have not heard of any debate yet about 18 yr old guys getting snipped, however.)

It's a dreadful issue and whips up all sorts of fears and anxieties in Hungary - such as the fact that the population is leveling off or that its young people are leaving to go far away places like Ireland for better work and better lives. [insert right-wing anti-EU xenophobia here]

And add into it other fears of Ethnic Hungarians not 'repopulating' in comparison to the ever proliferating Roma/Gypsy population here. [think of that 'inevitable' SF victory in the North just because the Catholics supposedly reproduce faster - only in reverse. then you get the feel of the anxiety]

Hungary is a country that is solidly Pro-Choice and secular - unlike its Polish neighbors to the north, things here are rather secular and people are happy that way. Today the Hungarian right wing is using this 18 yr old women getting their tubes tied as a wedge to eventually tackle abortion rights.

Anti-Right to Choose Sterilisation Posters on the streets of Budapest

by thicko Thu Jul 06, 2006 09:32

Mrs Egg, despite being in a new relationship said in court yesterday that she expects Mr. Egg to pay maintenence despite the fact she is in a new relationship.

She expects to be maintained by him during pregnancy leave, and to recieve maintenence etc.

They qualify for divorce next year, so he will not be a "married" father when Mrs. Egg gives birth.

He already has access problems. It'll be worse when he isn't "married" to the mother. He would have to apply for guardianship, access etc. All the time he will be paying maintenence.

I think this exposes the inequality in family law. This case exposes that under Irish law, fathers are really nothing more than sperm donors in terms of parental rights.

BTW, if Mrs Egg was motivated by religious considerations, chances are she would not have undergone IVF in the first place.

by Chris Murray - The Unmanageables Thu Jul 06, 2006 16:55

A bit of role reversal here-

She wants more children she should have them, but it begs a case for
a kind of egg-pre-nup. or what to do in the case of divorce, separation
rowing , affairs and other such trials.

He doesn't want anymore. fair enough- why should he have to pay for the cost of raising children that he does not want?

And why should a woman throw herself on the patriarchy of the
church-dominated medico-legal system when all else seems to have failed?

She should sign a document giving him the freedom from responsibility for the embryos and go her way. He is not responsible for her body-craving and the relationship was obviously difficult-

Note that she will not donate the embryos to a childless, lesbian, gay or
other person. They are hers and thus should remain so.

Said it before and will say it again , the constructed reality of
the nuclear family is a mythology designed to keep women in the home
during the best years of their lives. Its about freedom and choice,
she has the right to control her reproductive life, but not to the expectation of support when it is clearly stated that it is over. MOOT.

Plus it is horribly undignified to be displaying the marital sheets to an uninterested public.

by Gerri Fri Jul 07, 2006 01:14

Going by Thursday's Irish Times, Mrs Egg wishes for Mr Sperm to financially support her and any resulting children at least for the time she needs to take off work, once she gets those embryos into her uterus. So it is unlikely that she would sign a document giving Mr Sperm the freedom from responsibility for care of the embryos and any resulting children. Even if she did sign such a document, they have two other children already...he could hardly say 'well I'll look after you 2 but not that one'.

It is a very difficult situation and I would hazard a guess that Mr Sperm's less than gallant behavior in telling her he had met a new partner while she was seven months pregnant with their second (but first ivf conceived) child could be a factor in her motivation for trying to force her soon to be ex-husband into becoming a father to children he has no wish for. It seems that this is a case of someone using their potential children in a bitter split. I hope they sort this out before they cause psychological damage of the most severe kind to their existing children.

But what to do with the embryos, if the joint owners have such divergent views?

Is Mrs Egg is of the pro life mentality and does she regard these embryos as having similar rights to life as a newborn baby?

And so far no utterances have been heard from the RC Church which is surprising...

by - Fri Jul 07, 2006 02:54

brief reminder :-
(1)Mrs Egg & Mr Sperm are estranged will soon be divorced. = Irish Constitution newish legal waters.
(2)Mrs Egg & Mr Sperm used IVF for one child losing 2 embryos & stored 3 more = newish Irish science.
(3)Mrs Egg argues the embryos have a right to life an established christian concept.
(4)The Roman Catholic Church outlaws IVF under the Pope Paul VI encyclical "humanae vitae".
(5)Mr Sperm is facing child maintainence for 2 children (living) & possible 3 or 6 more (IVF often yields multiple births)

# if the court bases a decision on the embryos' right to life, than all embryos in Irish freezers (who the constitution has already ruled have a right to life) are having that right frustrated by fertility clinics.
# brings us to wondering why the RC church has not asked for the IVF clinics to be closed since it asked for them not to be opened & realising its one or the other - Either you have a RC law - no abortion - no IVF - no harvesting embryos and sticking them back in when you want or you accept the right of a woman to choose & Ireland rethinks abortion.

background info :-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IVF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanae_Vitae
http://www.sims.ie/home/statistics.asp
the case :
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0703/embryo.html
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0704/embryo.html
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0705/embryo.html

by albatros Fri Jul 07, 2006 10:33

Anyone for the last few frozen embryos?

by Chris Murray - The Unmanageables Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:28

RC law in ireland !!!!!!!!!!!!!

RC Law/ Canon Law is a bastardisation of monumental proportion that has nothing to do with religion.
(whoops)

It belongs {to those who choose to live by its tenets within the context of a private morality
and a spiritual journey. It has symbols and images and rites that support a religion freely chosen, or subjected thru blood on an individual}

It is private- as it should rightly be.

Now- Dogmatism and anti-feminine aspects of that hybrid bastardisation have rooted themselves well into the neo-liberal era of state collusion in sexism, war and capitalism.

That is a problem for a society, that shows itself glaringly in the varied little bastards it has bred
or in the words of the high priest of neo-liberalism , masculinist supremacy and anti-womanness.
Mc Dowell and the triple arm of good governance: State, law ,and the judiciary.

Thus return it to the realm of the spirit, where it has a rightful place and then we can be spared the variety of egg/sperm pernigrations (sic).

This by the way would pertain to other societies that twist religion , faith and fidelity into
dogmatic control of individual life.
or in fem-terms: masculinist supremacy and codified claptrap.
Happy Friday.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by noteworthy Sat Jul 08, 2006 03:09

As we all know using IVF is an excommunicable offence. The doctors of SIMS work in Rathgar so probably vote PD (like most lapsed kathurlicks now they're on the piggie's back) - but if you see them down the church or for that matter half of Ireland's biotech industry - shop them to your PP.)
read this link on another thread for details.
http://indymedia.ie/article/68869&comment_limit=0&conde...57676

by iosaf Tue Jul 18, 2006 16:58

& I see from Irish commercial media that such is the case.
http://www.unison.ie/breakingnews/index.php3?ca=9&si=95229
http://www.unison.ie/breakingnews/index.php3?ca=9&si=95239
http://www.irishhealth.com/?level=4&id=9913
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breaking/story.asp?j=18944...45976

so that's that then..............................or is it?

Mrs Egg has not convinced Judge Brian Mc Govern that her embryos have a right to life which supercedes Mr Sperm's right to stop her.... his rights / her rights / contracts / consents / rights.....

What is very noteworthy is that such an interesting case in the High Court missed the reporters for the last while. RTE tellingly gave up after only 3 mentions.

I'm going to wait for the Law Gazette. Great reading the Law Gazette, and its particularly nice to thmb a copy coz you get the feeling of one-up-manship safe in the knowledge that Mc Dowell doesn't bother reading it.

This case is ear-marked for future reference & the embryos are still in the freezer. They're not "spare embryos". They just don't have a womb because their mammy and daddy didn't stay together & life works out that way sometimes.

by Chris Murray - The unmanageables Tue Jul 18, 2006 17:28

Mrs egg will appeal- because there are constitutional arguments involved (apparently).

This would tie in neatly with the sex law case , (statutory rape) bill that an all party committee of male TDs are currently discussing as a result of the insertion of section 5 in the Criminal law (sexual offences) bill 2006.

It is reported that Mr ahern who was not at the debate on the rape laws- favours a constitutional referendum of section 40.

This is the usual distraction (stand by )in times of global upheaval- get the irish talking about sex.

by pat c Tue Jul 18, 2006 17:36

yeah, this will go to the supreme court alright. todays judgement though was actually a victory for women. have to wait for full judgement but it would appear to imply that unplanted embryos do not have constitutional protection.

looks as if bertie will try the referendum trick alright. build up a head of hysteria and blacken everyone else as babykillers or pedo supporters.

by chris murray Tue Jul 18, 2006 17:40

I will be doing something illegal with my voting card if a constitutional referendum by the catholic state attempts to place this discussion within the perameters of their 'branding'.

meanwhile the NGO's are very quiet on these issues.....(constitutional ref/stat rape)

As to ownership.

Its a case of mitigation. (and someone got bad legal advice on their mitigation).

by pat c Tue Jul 18, 2006 17:53

"I will be doing something illegal with my voting card if a constitutional referendum by the catholic state attempts to place this discussion within the perameters of their 'branding'."

If they do then a no vote might be better. an unused vote could well be the equivalent of a yes vote.

"meanwhile the NGO's are very quiet on these issues.....(constitutional ref/stat rape)"

Unfortunately some of the NGOs such as the Rape Crisis Centre Network opposed the lowering of the age of consent. They did this in the full knowledge that children would be criminalised for engaging in sexual activity with eachother.

by Scrambled eggs Tue Jul 18, 2006 20:29

Two people with a freezer of eggs, take a case to the medico/legal moneyed establishement of ownership rights...

and the guy wins, fair enough bad legal advice for Mrs egg, she has not been taught the art of mitigation:

Donate them to a couple who cannot conceive

or

Make babies and free the father from responsibility, i.e right to choose, but taking responsibility for the choice.

but we end up with a constitutional argument of defining when life begins, which brings the crazy gay-bashers and white supremacists onto the streets. Divide and conquer, if you will forgive the pun.

Meantime: the sex laws have criminalised the young and the issue of rape is obfuscated.

Meantime: an illegal war rages on many fronts and , the extreme right manifests itself in the control of women.

Is this the most right wing government since the foundation of the state?

by Buddy Thu Jul 20, 2006 14:39

It seems that Mrs. Egg just wants to punish Mr. Sperm for his past wayward behaviour. If she really wanted the frozen embryos implanted with the hope of having more children then as far as I'm concerned she has a case to put forward as she contributed 50% of the material which went into producing the embryo. it is her choice to have these children.

However forcing Mr. Sperm into assuming responsibility for any future children is simply laughable. Its his choice to not have any future children with this woman and that must be respected also.

To me the family dynamic is broken. No sane person would wish to bring further children into a broken relationship and I dont think any sane society would wish such a situation to develop as a matter of common sense.

The issues and agendas here seem to me to be

1. Mrs. Egg wants to punish Mr. Sperm for his previous affair by forcing the responsibility of extra children and increased child maintenance on him. In essence "I'll hit him where it hurts, the pocket".

2. Mr. Sperm although probably no angel wishes to deny Mrs. Egg the use of these embryos as he sees these embryos as a stick with which Mrs. Egg wishes to give him a sound beating.

As a solution if she really needs more children could she not
(a) agree that Mr. Sperm will have no responsibility either financially or morally towards any future children or
(b) try to get impregnated by another man.

To me the legal and contractual interpretations with regards to the embryos are important however in deciding this case the underlying agendas of both Mrs. Egg and Mr. Sperm seem much more relevant as to what is being argued. To me there are approx 2.5 billion other men on this planet who could provide the biological material with which to add to her eggs. Could she not go and get some from one of them.

Although if it was me I'd definately need to find out if she required maintenance first!!!!!

by pat c Thu Jul 20, 2006 14:49

(a) agree that Mr. Sperm will have no responsibility either financially or morally towards any future children

She cannot sign away any future childs right to maintenance or succession rights. I agree though that shes out to bash Mr Sperm. she might even have a "pro-life" agenda. i obviously spoke too soon about that aspect of the case being settled.

by Chris Murray - The Unmanageables Thu Jul 20, 2006 22:24

regarding ' a man's right to choose' being acknowledged, by the triple arm of good governance-

the impending referendum and the stat rape debacle have illuminated the glaring deficency
in the issue of under-representation on women in established politics, judiciary and legal:

The wording of a proposed referenda will be decided by a parliament which has little to do
with the community concerns of the women, who have not the right to choose.

The age of consent issue will be decided by a cross-party committee, composed solely of male Td's
as a result of 'Hastily drafted' legislation.

The issue of a woman's right to choose, will be represented therefore in in the old ethical basis of
womb terror and church-state controls, given the defecits that the sex laws and the egg/sperm case have highlighted.

by Chris Murray - not having done a social studies course... Fri Jul 21, 2006 15:53

The present pope Benedict XVI is the inheritor of a philosophical system that has discounted women for two thousand+ years-

In memory : there existed a thing called the 'children's graveyard'
wherein still-born babies were 'housed' with suicides and 'unchurched' women. These graveyards were built to accomodate the soul in limbo, as the infant /foetus had not been given the first sacrament. This practice has changed since then( and the NRA are re-burying the dead in other plots, if they happen to be in the way of the ongoing roads programme).
Churching was a form of abuse that stemmed from the fear of women's generative capacity, in that a woman still 'stained' from the process of producing little catholics would have to undergo a sacramental re-invitation to the church, if she died in'childbed', she was put in the children's graveyard, along with the suicides and foetuses (in limbo)

In 1967: My mother had her still-born almost term baby taken from her, unbaptised, unregistered and deposited in the holy infants plot in Glasnevin cemetry. To this day she has not been able to mark the grave.
legislations have since changed these practices.

Two years ago, a patient of the medico-legal establishment , governed by a church ethic came to me and described an interview with her gynae, who produced for her a model explaining how they were going to insert balloons into her uterus and flood them with boiling water, under a local anaesthetic to remove a medical problem.

*We have the ongoing Mrs egg/ Mr sperm debacle with the frozen embroyos and the taoiseach's hinting at a constitutional referendum on the determination when life begins.

*George Bush used his veto to stop stem cell research.
*24 hours later Germany accompanied him in the cutting of funds to stem cell research.(Irish Times of today)

The right wing control of women's bodies and 'organs of generation'
is related to the use of war to further the ends of a supposed elitism, based on a jaundiced view of sexuality and womb fear. or it can be looked at in terms of opening another market place wherein the commodification of the individual knows no bounds , through the separation of the individual from cultural and collective identity and its replacement therein with a bastardised set of languages and religious principles that bear no relation to how we actually speak and see ourselves.

by C Murray Wed Nov 15, 2006 18:22

The court ruled today that the embryos cannot be classified as 'unborn' thus they cannot be implanted.
There is a lot of womb talk in the eating areas of my home-on the radio.
its quite forensic.

The Catholic church is needless to say displeased.

The context was wrong from the beginning and the mitigating factors.
Mr Egg did not want to support the kids and mrs egg felt he should.

The moral context and definition of the family has obfustacated the issue.
if the mrs egg was willing to have the babies and support them it would have been easier
but to force someone into parenthood because of that desire is entirely different.

Mr egg did not want the babies- mrs egg did.

thus he had his rights upheld in law- in the case of enforced pregnancy through present
canonical definition the situation would not be as easily accomplished for a girl/woman who would make the same decision.

Therefore the rights of women in relation to accepting the gender-determined roles
within the moral definition of her role by the catholic church should be equally respected
in Irish law.

by C Murray Thu Nov 16, 2006 15:16

Mc Dowell is announcing that the assisted reproduction comm and Mary Harney are
studying the implications of the Judgement of yesterday. There will be legislation on
assisted human reproduction.

Two things.

Will it be affordable?
and in the context of this isolated case- it should not be read as 'delicate' - its a right based
issue within the context of reproductive rights.

However:

A woman died after ovarian stimulation for harvesting purposes last year-and it is in the
context of an 'industry' which requires regulation. given that PD is shortspeak for
'Privatise everything' the context for forthcoming legislation should be interesting.
and:

POverty and catholicism.

For those who can plan and decide about these onerous issues there is a whole lot of
women who need therapeutic abortion, gene counselling, cancer treatment and none
of these issues are discussed in a framework other than the undemocratic
religious framework.

Therefore- is it not right that reproductive rights should be developed in:

1. Respect for autonomy of women, thus inclusivity in any framework : Medical, ethical
religious.
2. All forms of reproductive therapy should be widely available to women not just the
monied class.

3.Regulation of what could be an industry should be prioritised.

Copping out by stirring up a religious debate that cares nothing for the bodily
integrity and the privacy of the : Rape Victim, Woman with Cancer, 13 year old child,
woman who was disallowed counselling during pregnancy when informed her
child was severely deformed and she could not have an abortion- (no gene therapy there..)

is not on- these are human rights issues.

by Paul O'Donnell Thu Nov 16, 2006 15:37

I have some Birdseye fish fingers in my freezer. They will be fried sometime (or grilled). Mr. & Mrs. Eggsperm's fertilized embryo has no more legal right to life than my fish fingers. What I can't figure out is why she want's this guys kid at all if they've separated. Why can't she go out and find another guy who's willing to share his jeans?

by Bird's eye. Thu Nov 16, 2006 16:26

The premise of the case did nothing to advance the issue.
If the woman had applied to unfreeze the embryos and see herself as a family with
her future children-as an independent woman, not reliant on the express wishes
of her estranged husband's desire not to have kids- then it would be less complicated.
The fact that the case was taken in order to make someone who clearly did not want
kids have them because she did was given too much media time.

Why did she frame a case regarding unfreezing embryos within the context of a non-existent
family (constitutional definition) and an estranged relationship?

Bad legal advice?

or
an attempt to move the issue of the right to life into the glare of publicity.

I support the husband's right not to have any more children and if she wants
them to have a bit of balls and bring them up herself.

Its anti-feminist in the extreme to situate a case in failure- how embarassing....

by iosaf mac diarmada Tue Dec 15, 2009 16:33

Tuesday, December 15, 2009, 16:12
Court rules against woman in case over frozen embryos
Irish Times - Mary Carolan reports :-

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed an appeal by a separated mother of two against the High Court's refusal to order a Dublin clinic to release three frozen embryos to her with a view to becoming pregnant against the wishes of her estranged husband.

The five judge court found the embryos are not the "unborn" within the meaning of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution (the anti-abortion amendment of 1983) and therefore not entitled to Constitutional proetction. The "unborn" referred to a child within the womb and not pre-implanation embryos, the judges ruled.

They also found there was no enforceable contract between the woman, Mary Roche (43), and her estranged husband, Thomas Roche, entitling her to use the embryos.

The court also once again highlighted the failure of the State to regulate fertility treatment and stressed the matter was "serious and urgent". Noting the courts have stressed the need for laws for some 18 years, Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman warned that if the legislature does not address these issues, Ireland may become by default an unregulated environment for practices which may prove controversial or, at least, to give rise to a need for regulation.