October 13, 2008 | In: Culture of Life, Human Dignity, New Birth Technology
Property Rights Disputed . . . Over Embryos
Ireland is a bit behind the rest of us. Their culture and laws are still greatly influenced by Christianity. They still legally protect human life at all stages. Don’t worry, though. They’re catching up.1
A Dublin Supreme Court recently ruled that at least one class of human beings don’t have human rights.
Irish Court Refuses Woman’s Plea for Her Own Frozen Embryos
In Roche v. Roche, a woman sued her now-estranged husband for refusing to let her use their embryos; the man said he does not want to father any more children. The woman argued that the protection offered in the Irish Constitution to the unborn child included embryos, but the High Court ruled that the three frozen embryos in question are not to be given the rights of unborn children, because they are outside the womb.
The embryos in question came to life during an in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedure. They were the three “remaining” embryos from the process that resulted in the birth of their daughter. The woman’s husband had signed a contract saying that he agreed to be a father to any children produced through the IVF process. Now that the couple is separated, the father states that he does not want to be a father to any more children born by the process.
Three months later, the couple separated, and the woman asked for custody of her three remaining embryos. However, her husband argued that the visit to the IVF clinic was purely for “one more go” at a second child, and he does not want to act as father to the embryos, in the event that the implantation were successful.
“I have a right to say no. It is my human right,” he said.
The woman persisted in her desire to carry her own children to term. “These embryos constituted human life, I treat them as our children,” she said. “That is how our daughter came into the world.”
The bad news for this man is that he is already a father. These fertilized embryos are already living human persons. He is already a father to all six embryos (including the two that died during the first implantation). He may not be legally bound to pay childcare for them, but he is their father nonetheless.
Both the father of these children and the Supreme Court have made the assumption that these embryonic human beings are not human persons. What makes them different from unborn children who are protected by the law? Location. The fact that these tiny human babies are located outside of a mother’s womb is the only criteria the Supreme Court gave for their ruling that they did not deserve human rights.
Illogical? You bet. The same kind of illogic that continues to deprive unborn babies in the womb of human rights in the United States and most of Europe. Ireland is catching on. It won’t be long before they’re as pro-death as the rest of us.
Please pray.
[ad#seasonal]
End Notes
Gilbert, Kathleen. “Irish Courts Refuses Woman’s Plea for Her Own Frozen Embryos.” Lifesite News. [www] 9 October 2008. Available http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08100904.html.
1 Please note the sarcasm with which this statement is intended. I certainly hope that Ireland not only stays well behind the developing Culture of Death in the United States and Europe, but that they actually retreat back to the Culture of Life and become a light unto the nations.
Related Links:
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
