Does An Embryo Have An Independent Right To Life

'Does An Embryo Have An Independent Right To Life'

 

 

A woman left infertile after cancer treatment cannot use her frozen embryos to have a baby, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.
Natallie Evans started IVF treatment with her then partner Howard Johnston in 2001 but he withdrew consent for the embryos to be used after they split up.

Ms Evans went to the Strasbourg court after exhausting the UK legal process. [...] The UK's Court of Appeal and High Court had both ruled that Ms Evans, who is in her early 30s, could not use the embryos and she failed in her bid to take the case to the House of Lords.

In the court's judgement today, decided by a panel of seven judges, said: "The Court, like the national courts, had great sympathy for the plight of the applicant who, if implantation did not take place, would be deprived of the ability to give birth to her own child."

But it was ruled, in a majority verdict that, even in such exceptional circumstances as Ms Evans', the right to a family life - enshrined in article eight of the European Convention of Human Rights - could not override Mr Johnston's withdrawal of consent.

It also ruled unanimously that the embryos did not have an independent right to life.

She now hopes to appeal to the Grand Jury of the European Court, but still wants her ex-fiancé to change his mind.

Ms Evans said: "I'm still as determined to do whatever it takes to have a child of my own."

She added: "Howard may feel it's too late for him to change his mind, but it's not."

But Mr Johnston, from Gloucester, said: "It seems that common sense has prevailed."

"The key thing for me was just to be able to decide when, and if, I would start a family."

This is a difficult one. Being a woman, I know and understand how she feels, this is her last hope to have a child, but on the other hand I also understand how strongly he feels about his right to have a choice to be a father. So despite being opinionated on almost every issue you can throw at me, I find this one particularly difficult. It is complicated by the fact that she is not a woman with intact ovaries, who could conceive without assistance due to her previous cancer treatment, and does not have the luxury of multiple IVF attempts.

As the law stands the embryo has no legal right of it's own, therefore the decision is to be made by the respective parents to be, and as I understand it, the one parent has changed his mind, having initially given consent.

From experience some of my friends have had, the IVF fertility treatment is far from simple. It is a long and painful, emotionally traumatic process, and obviously in this case this young woman's last opportunity to bear a child. Knowing what a joy in one's life this is, it is difficult not to feel sympathy for someone so young, whose choice is denied by judicial intervention.

This is a landmark decision, and it could also have wider repercussions for British law, world-wide medicine and science alike. In the Strasbourg hearing last year - rushed through because of a time limit on how long embryos can be stored (British law states the maximum time storage period is five years, and that time expires in October this year) - they argued that a British law which denies a woman permission to use her embryos is in breach of the Human Rights Convention.

The convention guarantees the "right to family life".

They also claimed it breaches the Convention's stipulations outlawing discrimination, by treating her differently from a woman with intact ovaries who could conceive without assistance and produce sufficient eggs for repeated attempts at IVF.

So, does an embryo have an independent right to life?

UPDATE: See the interview with Ms. Evans, and read the actual judgement which provides a very interesting read especially into the circumstances surrounding the case, and inherently how inadequately the law and the seven out of nine Justices deal with those unusual circumstances, making them entirely irrelevant:

On 10 October 2000 the applicant and J were informed, during an appointment at the clinic, that preliminary tests had revealed that the applicant had serious pre-cancerous tumours in both ovaries, and that her ovaries would have to be removed. They were told that because the tumours were growing slowly, it would be possible first to extract some eggs for in vitro fertilisation (“IVF”), but that this would have to be done quickly.

The consultation of 10 October 2000 lasted approximately an hour in total. A nurse explained that the applicant and J would each have to sign a form consenting to the IVF treatment and that, in accordance with the provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”), it would be possible for either of them to withdraw his or her consent at any time before the embryos were implanted in the applicant’s uterus (see paragraphs 27-30 below). The applicant asked the nurse whether it would be possible to freeze her unfertilised eggs, but was informed that this
procedure, which had a much lower chance of success, was not performed at the clinic. At that point J reassured the applicant that they were not going to split up, that she did not need to consider the freezing of her eggs, that she should not be negative and that he wanted to be the father of her child. Wall J found that J gave these assurances in good faith, because at that time he loved the applicant, genuinely wanted a child with her and wanted to support her during a very difficult period.

In the final judgment, all is summarized in two short paragraphs, which are, as is customary, totally devoid of emotion. But this whole case revolves around the emotions and state of mind of the Applicant at the time, and the circumstances surrounding the IVF treatment.

The crux of the case is that Ms. Evans signed the papers without (a) being counseled properly, despite an express written term on the form not to do so, (b) received express verbal assurance from her partner that there was no cause for concern of a withdrawal of consent (a clause which caused her concern - - remember she was there before in 1995) and as such decided against freezing her eggs, and (c) was told that this had to be done quickly. In the interview she tells us that she didn't read the small print. Of course not; all she needed to hear from her partner is exactly what he told her in no uncertain terms. "I want to be the father of your child".

That's what should have been pleaded in this case. It should have been pleaded at that point he had become the father, and that it was an express term in this particular agreement that he had waived his right to withdraw consent. In this case, his verbal assurance overrides the written form for the simple reason, that Ms Evans was in no fit mental state to even begin reading or fully grasping the implications of the full extent of the statute. Worse, given her experience with the failed marriage, she even asks whether it wouldn't be better to freeze her eggs, but was told that (a) it had lesser chances of success and (b) her partner was with her all the way.

In my opinion, had that been pleaded, the Justices would not have faced the dilemma of having to effectively legislate from the bench, but to merely uphold a "mutually agreed contract" between two consenting parties.

Unfortunately, justice has been served given the pleading, but the fault for failing to obtain true justice lies with the Applicant attorneys' failure to grasp the Justices' reluctance to legislate from the bench. From the judgement:

While there was an interference with the private lives of the parties, Lord Justices Thorpe and Sedley found it to be justified and proportionate, for the following reasons: “The less drastic means contended for here is a rule of law making the withdrawal of [J’s] consent non-conclusive. This would enable [the applicant] to seek a continuance of treatment because of her inability to conceive by any other means. But unless it also gave weight to [J’s] firm wish not to be father of a child borne by [the applicant], such a rule would diminish the respect owed to his private life in proportion as it enhanced the respect accorded to hers. Further, in order to give it weight the legislation would have to require the Human Fertilisation and Embryology

Authority or the clinic or both to make a judgment based on a mixture of ethics, social policy and human sympathy. It would also require a balance to be struck between two entirely incommensurable things. ... ... The need, as perceived by Parliament, is for bilateral consent to implantation, not simply to the taking and storage of genetic material, and that need cannot be met if one half of the consent is no longer effective. To dilute this requirement in the interests of proportionality, in order to meet [the applicant’s] otherwise intractable biological handicap, by making the withdrawal of the man’s consent relevant but inconclusive, would create new and even more intractable difficulties of arbitrariness and inconsistency. The sympathy and concern which anyone must feel for [the applicant] is not enough to render the legislative scheme ... disproportionate.”

An e-mail from a reader sums up my feelings about the case: "I believe the embryos in this particular situation do indeed have such a right and the reason is because, for lack of a better word, the father initially consented to the fertilization of the eggs for the purpose of implantation and, consequently, the generation of life. Fertilization is the key: up until the point of fertilization, consent could be rescinded. But once those eggs were fertilized, that changed everything.

The court essentially gives males an enormous amount of control in these types of artificial insemination situations. For up until the point of implantation, he controls whether the woman will be allowed the opportunity to become pregnant. She has no enforceable right to compel implantation even if she relied on promises he made to give consent. What an imbalance of power!

I suppose the only smart course of action any woman in this situation would have would be to have a contract drawn up that would void any withdrawal of consent but even that is dicey as this same court could rule that a right to not be a parent supercedes the provisions of any contract -- in other words a person cannot contract-away his/her fundamental human rights."

UPDATE II: Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the battle lines between the elected representatives of the people and the the Supreme Court's dictate have been drawn on the issue of Roe v Wade. It is clear that this battle will have to be fought at some point, and they're betting that this court will at least be open to the argument that Roe has no basis in law or constitution and should be voided:

Gov. Michael Rounds of South Dakota signed into law the nation's most sweeping state abortion ban on Monday, an intentional provocation meant to set up a direct legal challenge to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 United States Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal.

More from Kim Priestap @ Wizbang, and Adam, who commenting on the UK story expresses his disapproval "....games of power politics are played with the lives of the innocent and we butcher our own conscience in the name of things like choice or convenience.

Comments

[Raimondo]

The Western world's birthrate is at an all time low. We rack our brains and torment our souls about abortions and reproductive rights. Meanwhile in countries like Somalia and Yemen there is no scarsity of newborns.

To me this simple statistic highlights the fact that their will to live is far stronger than ours.

Picture the world demographic situation a century from now.

[slowtrain]

DavidByron writes:

“The life of an individual animal is conventionally measured from birth, or hatching. How old are you? Do you measure your age from conception? No. And neither does anyone else. For all practical concerns in society the answer to the begining of an individual human's life is settled already, and has been for millenia: birth.”

By DavidByron’s logic one day or even 30 seconds before a child emerges from the birth canal, the child is an animal or not a human being, perhaps never existed. With each subsequent comment, DavidByron raises the bar of silliness. The convention of measuring life, or more appropriately age, from birth can equally be one that measures age from conception, after all life is also measured from conception to birth. The convention for measuring age from birth to death, only measures the apparent age, not the real age of the person.

The word convention is defined as “formed by agreement or compact lacking originality or individuality, according with a mode of artistic representation that simplifies or provides symbols or substitutes for natural forms, of traditional design.” In other words, DavidByron is talking about fashion, put differently, opinions. Opinions are not facts. As I have stated before, they are tangential to the intents of the one that forms or holds them. Go a little further and you find that facts are not necessarily truths. Facts are based on observation or knowledge. For one thing, you don’t have to know the truth for the truth to be. Truth is and remains, even if it is outside one’s sphere of knowledge. Truth is that which has conformity to an original. The original truth may be an attribute of God (e.g., love, righteousness, justice, peace, charity, forgiveness, faith, etc.), which is the basis for standards of conduct such as abhorrence for and prohibition of murder. The original truth may also be the reality of the human being.

The conformity of a truth claim to an original is the correspondence view of truth. It is important to recognize that it is not the same as a method for testing truth claims or discovering knowledge—science. Whether or not a person is aware of an attribute, an object, or an event, and whether the person accepts or rejects truth claims pertaining to the attribute, object or event, does not make the existence of those things or the truth claims about them true or false. The existence or truth claims about these things are true regardless of knowledge (ignorance or cognizance); this is the limitation of science.

According to the correspondence view of truth, what makes a statement true is reality itself. As I said, truth is independent of human minds (experience or knowledge). In other words, truth is not dependent on anyone, even science, knowing it for it to be. There is so much that science does not know, yet. For example the nature of the dark matter, yet the dark matter is, regardless. The same goes for embryos. The fact that some people do not have the experience (knowledge) regarding some things or events, whereas others do, should not diminish the validity that those things exist. Similarly, just because some people make certain claims does not make those claims truths. By definition, truth is exclusive. What this means is that something either is or isn’t. I don’t know how old DavidByron is, but say he is 281/2 years old, would it be correct to say that 28 years ago he was not human, perhaps a reptile?

We must be careful not to confuse experience (knowledge) with truth. Experience or knowledge is conditional (relative) while the thing, event, or phenomenon being experienced (or not being experienced) is not conditional. Experience or knowledge relates to conditional or relative truth, but the thing, event, or phenomenon being experienced relates to absolute truth. For example, just because someone heard a thunderclap but did not see the flash of lightening that preceded the thunderclap does not mean the lightening flash did not occur. While it is true that one may not have seen the lightening flash or heard the thunderclap, it is also true that the lightening flash and thunderclap actually happened. One is absolute (unconditional) truth and the other is relative (conditional) truth.
Therefore, establishing the ultimate truth becomes a matter of precedence. In which case, the event, which by nature preexisted and precedes judgments about them, is absolutely true and the experience or judgment is relatively or conditionally true. In other words, because someone did not experience an event or something does not mean the event did not take place or that the thing does not exist. Even more importantly, is the verification of truth; truth boils down to two tests, first, statements must correspond to reality, and second, any system of thought that is developed as a result must be coherent. Apply the correspondence and coherence tests to David’s arguments and his arguments utterly fail.

DavidByron writes:

“My value as a person is evident in my words because only people can think and feel as I am proving I can. DNA is irrelevent to my claim to be a person. If I have a mind that is enough and if I don't nothing else will make up for it.”

DavidByron is like those abortion advocates, who believe that only the ability to breathe through the nostrils makes a person human. For them, this is the litmus test for determining who is considered human and who is not, hence suggesting that people on life support and people temporarily unconscious, are no longer humans or temporarily not human, since they cannot breathe on their own or through the nostrils, albeit temporarily (as is the embryo). Their logic is that since the unborn child does not breathe through the nostrils and on its own, it has no soul; therefore, it cannot be regarded as a full human being and cannot be accorded the same legal protection as humans who have made it beyond the womb. It is very clear what ‘people’ like DavidByron are trying to do; they are trying to establish a new height of reprobacy.

[Stefan]

David,

Your argument is increasingly obscure and silly. We are not talking about the beginning of humanity itself but of individual human lives. So that is a red herring. We count age from birth, yes, so what? You are continuing to split hairs. DNA is not proof of personhood but the marker of a unique individual Homo Sapien. The blood transfusion example is beyond silly. The difference between a zygote and a sperm or ovum is tremendous. A sperm or ovum that is simply nourished will never become a child while a zygote will. Conception does take place over several hours…so what? That changes nothing. DNA simply proves that the “object” in question is unique (being neither the one parent nor the other) and that it of the human species.

Once that is settled (which is so widely accepted that you are up against the bulk of biological science) then we ask (as you correctly stated) the philosophical question (which is what I was saying the whole time if you read more carefully) of when “personhood” begins. What do you say a person is? What are these dreaded costs of placing personhood “too early” that you are speaking of? Be specific. If personhood is decided by birth (which you seem to imply) then you are saying one’s humanity has to do with one’s physical location? Absurd. A child in the womb at 4:00 is not a person but once they are outside at 4:10 they are? What happened in that time? The child changed location. That argument makes zero sense. If you are saying that personhood depends on consciousness then what level are you speaking of? Who decides? Are the severely mentally handicapped conscious enough for you? They can’t think as you do. Peter Singer says no. Do you agree with him? Singer says is about feeling pain so he includes animals on the same level as humans. Do you? What we know of fetal pain would defeat that as well. The point is that all of these lines of personhood are arbitrary so in order to avoid them all together we must use a biological line and the most obvious biological line is conception. There is no argument that a unique and distinct human life doesn’t exist before conception (except for your assertions perhaps) and it does exist afterwards. Do you suggest another line based on biology?

As for being be “happy to kill” you if you had no human DNA...you do and so do all humans so....that is a great big waste of time.

[DavidByron]

The scientific view of when human life began is several hundred thousand years ago in Africa somewhere. And incidentally would it have been ok to abort the parents of the first human since they didn't have human DNA?

The life of an individual animal is conventionally measured from birth, or hatching. How old are you? Do you measure your age from conception? No. And neither does anyone else. For all practical concerns in society the answer to the begining of an individual human's life is settled already, and has been for millenia: birth.

DNA is not uniquely determined at conception and neither is the human body made up entirely of human DNA. About 90% of your cells are not "human" cells. Anyone who has had a blood transfusion has at least two kinds of human DNA in them, and human chimeras, formed when two non-identical zygotes fuse, have different DNA in different parts of their body.

A zygote is human life, but so is a sperm or an ovum. There's very little difference between a zygote and an ovum. All physical process are continuous. Conception is not instantaneous. How can an ovum on the point of being fertilized, perhaps with the sperm head already penetrating towards its nucleus, perhaps with nuclei merged but DNA not yet, how can that be considered worthless while the almost inevitable end product is not?

What is it that makes a person special? If I were to tell you that I have no human DNA would that mean you'd be happy to kill me? Of course not. My value as a person is evident in my words because only people can think and feel as I am proving I can. DNA is irrelevent to my claim to be a person. If I have a mind that is enough and if I don't nothing else will make up for it. It is necessary and sufficient. DNA is neither.

You admit there is no scientific way to prove what a person is. So your question is not scientific but philosophical and moral, perhaps theological. Answering a philosophical question with a scientific answer (DNA) is invalid. The question isn't "When does DNA start?" but "Why would you think DNA is important?". Science doesn't know what to measure until you first answer the question "What is a person?"

There is no "safe" answer to this question as you argue. There are costs to placing the date too early and also too late. That is evident from the fact that pro-life legislation doesn't in fact just state that the unborn are to have the same rights as the born.

[Stefan]

The view that human life does not begin at conception is deeply non-scientific. Genetically that is the point when a new and unique DNA code is created. Period, end of story. It is not the DNA of the mother or that of the father. If you were to take a DNA sample at that point it would match the DNA of that person if you took it from them when they were 100 years old. It is unarguably a living thing of the species Homo Sapien. If a newly pregnant mother was to die (God forbid) and an autopsy was performed they would not say that she seemed to have some type of lizard (or whatever) growing in her would they? They would say she was with child (a.k.a. pregnant).

The biological arguments used to de-humanize the unborn are out dated rhetoric from the 1960’s and ‘70’s and no longer hold any water. That is why abortion advocates don’t mention them much anymore. If you notice, they talk in terms of lofty “rights” and “liberties” in the attempt to side-step an issue that they can no longer win in the scientific realm. Why would they need to keep it “safe, legal, and RARE” if it were nothing more than the removal of some tissue or some type of parasite? You learn the other side’s mind by what they are avoiding and by what they are saying to cover the weak links in their position.

If you look at what people are really arguing you see that it is not, at the root, the scientific understanding of human life but the more fluid question of when do we becomes “persons”. This is how people can argue that “life” (meaning personhood) doesn’t begin until we “have a brain”, or after “twinning” is past the realm of possibility, or after a child can survive outside the womb, or the moment of birth, or as abortion champion and darling of the Left Peter Singer argues, well into childhood. These are all non-scientific judgments based on personal agendas or beliefs. There is NO WAY to prove or disprove, scientifically, the veracity of either position.

Well then, if that is the case, then how can we have legal protections for humans if we can’t agree exactly when one is a part of the human community and when they have rights? We must, obviously, decide on some “point” at which the law will recognize a citizen. It is absurd to say that the mother or father decides when they feel a child is a citizen because no person can will another in or out of humanity at their whim. We must gather all biological evidence, consider the traditions and values of our culture and society (sorry to those who hate to admit it but this absolutely includes religious tradition and belief), and the legal traditions and values of our Republic. Maybe we will make a mistake and declare that personhood begins before it “really” does but we must ALWAYS err on the side of caution and on the side of protecting human life.

If there was a building set for demolition and zero hour had arrived but there was some concern that there were children playing in or around the targeted building; what would be the responsible thing to do? Would we advocate blowing it up anyway or would we take every conceivable precaution to make damn sure there were no children inside before we gave the green light? While there is debate about the beginning of personhood (holding a position negating personhood for the sole reason of keeping abortion legal is irrational and brutally irresponsible) there is one thing we can agree on. There is no pregnancy before conception and there is afterwards. If that pregnancy is uninterrupted a new taxpayer will be inevitable. This is the most responsible and “safe” position. Fair minded people should be able to agree that a just society must not make arbitrary or utilitarian judgments on who is considered human, therefore protected by law, and who is not, therefore disposable.

[RL]

gehealthcare.com/usen/ultrasound/4d/

physiciansforlife.org

Mother Teresa was absolutely right when she stated that the greatest destroyer of peace and love on earth is abortion (the brutal-murdering & cruel holocaust of unborn babies).

"Every unborn baby is a beloved child of God."
Mother Teresa

Please choose Life, your Mother did.

: )

[Saunders]

Alexandra, that photo was published many years ago in Life magazine. It is a photo of a child in the womb (one of those non-human things Byron keeps talking about). I do wish he'd tell us what it actually is, though. I am getting quite curious about what he would call such a creature.

I must say I get very annoyed with the "atheist" David Byron and his cavalier attitude towards human life. I guess he is one of those [insert expletive here] individuals who advocates the abortion license even if the child is in the birth canal moments away from being born. At least there aren't many of them here in the United States. I mean, I can't remember the last time I actually heard anyone admit to being one.

[DavidByron]

I thought identical twins had identical DNA. Or are you talking about the DNA in the cells in the human body which are not homo sapiens cells (only about 10% of your cells are homo sapiens)?

The DNA might make you (nearly) unique but it doesn't make you human. It's the human-ness not the uniqueness that counts.

Why do you believe in souls? For biblical or cultural reasons? I think that the belief in the existence of non-physical intelligences whether called ghosts, spectres, spirits or souls... is pagan. Biblically the dead in Christ are spoken of as having a body and angels are also always spoken of as looking like young men or otherwise physical.

In general the bible is very positive about the physical, claiming that God called it "good" or even "very good". But people don't like the physical. It's dirty and boring whereas the idea of escaping it somehow is magical. One of the major early heresies of the church was to say that Jesus was not a true physical being but a spirit. if you remember Jesus ate some fish for the apostles because they thought he was a ghost after the ressurection.

Only God itself is spoken of as immaterial in the bible - not because physicalness is bad but because God is not part of the creation (except for the immanent Christ).

[Alexandra]

I am not fatalistic btw, I must make that distinction, which is why I said partly mapped out, the rest is what we make of it, which as you said we do during our conscious life.

I guess my point is that the genetic make up is a very important part of our conception and it occurs at the early stage of the embryo. It simply cannot be excluded as irrelevant. It may not be the complete picture, but it is a very important part, and then there is of course the soul.

By the way genetically absolutely identical does not exist I believe. There is always a little something which is different, even prior to the development of the brain. It is that genetic make up difference which makes us unique prior to the final stage of the development which you are referring to.

[DavidByron]

I'm an atheist (not agnostic).

the embryo's life is partly mapped out at the point of joining the sperm and the egg, and some will argue even before

Sure some people are determinists or believe God knows the future so it's all mapped out since forever. But that's far too powerful an idea to help argue abortion. That would argue against contraception and even more... you're looking at the wrong end of an absurdity pretty quickly. Pro-life wants to say there's a cut off point at conception where something special happens.

But identical twins are not the same person in two bodies. A person's life consists in the details of what they do and are and not their DNA.

[DavidByron]

Because it has no brain.

[Alexandra]

David,

Are you no longer a Christian?

As far as what makes a person a person, comprises of a lot more than the mind. The older I get, the more I realize that my genes are so incredibly strong and the values which I have inherited, play a huge role in my life. My emotions are not only governed by my experiences but by the experiences of my family, way before I even consciously knew of them (the experiences that is).

Obviously the mind plays a huge roll, but if you truly do not believe in the soul, I now understand why it is absolutely impossible for you to see the importance of an embryo or the fact that the embryo's life is partly mapped out at the point of joining the sperm and the egg, and some will argue even before. The mind and the body simply complete the creation so to speak.

In years to come the gestation will be taking place outside the womb, at which point the law will have to change, and at that point, all that we are discussing now will flow into one.

Saunders,

What a gorgeous photo. Your child I presume?

[Saunders]

Does an embryo think and feel? It does not.

How do you know this?

Feeling Good In A Warm and Cozy Place

[DavidByron]

I gather you are Serbian? When I read that I immidiately wondered what your take on the Kosovo (not Bosnia) war was, although I suppose if you were in Serbia when you were born it was probably too young. Your bio suggested you were in South America.

The Rightgrrls were generally pretty anti-feminist. I think at the time I was also trying to work on an anti-feminist webring.

As for Devil's advocate - by no means!

People sometimes think that because my opinions are pretty way out there. Way out on the left so far you'd probably agree with some, although not most. In fact I'm probably a communist (in the John the Baptist sense not the Tito sense) although I've never really tried to work out exactly how that word is used in America. I used to be an evangelical christian in England... where it means something slightly different. And I worked at a Christian research / policy center.... although as a computer admin not a researcher. I did apply for that job but I guess they got bunches of people applying.

I am sympathetic to the position of the outsider on blogs because I'm usually the outsider and I've been banned from scores of sites, mostly liberal, mostly for being anti-feminist or else anti-Israel or anti-American.

And as for abortion I'd say eventually it may be banned in the same way everyone will end up being a vegetarian one day -- because it's icky. But as for now, I don't beleive in a soul (I didn't when I was a christian either) and the thing that makes a person a person is their mind, not their DNA. Does an embryo think and feel? It does not. That is what it means to be human.

[Alexandra]

David,

Hahahahaaha, you are funny.

First of all I am definitely not a feminist. I am old Europe family for goodness sake. I am far too old fashioned to be one. I love having the door opened for me, and am in favor of all the gentlemenly manners that have gone out of the window since the burning bra brigade have taken over. I believe in wire bras, and inherently all the support, ahem, I can get.

I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to be equal to a man, and prefer to keep my feminine charm fully in tact, whilst my brain is kept clear of cobwebs.

One of the reasons why I love the South (although I don't live there)is because when I am there I feel like I am in Europe again, and don't have to get upset at being shoved out of the way by a crude man on his way to pinching my cab in the pouring rain, and who has seen women's lib as an excuse to ignore good old fashioned manners.

Wow, just read the thread, that's out of my league, however me thinks you love to play the devil's advocate. Is that not how we met?

Now we've got the hairy armpit brigade out of the way (who will never talk to me after this, just kidding girls I promise). What's your take on the question, and btw there are no qualifications regarding abortion debate. I am however a Christian and as you might read on the blog often have an interest in that side of the discussion. But let me not digress, what d'ya say?

[DavidByron]

Whoa! Alexandra, I want to know what we're getting into here first. What are your qualifications abortion-debate wise?

I used to argue with a bunch of the "Rightgrrls" years ago before the site was abandoned. I guess they weren't known back then but Karen Brauer the founder of that pro-life pharmacist "international" group and one of the founders of Feminists For Life (Pat?) was there. Small internet as it turns out.

Something about the way you phrased yourself above suggests you may also be an old warrior on this circuit. In which case we can probably skip some formalities. I don't do it much these days of course. here's my last discussion on abortion, and here's the one before that.

[Saunders]

Michael writes:

You can throw every single ingredient you need to make bread into one big bole, but that does not make it bread: although it has all the ingredients in it.

This is a silly analogy. Bread dough does not have "all the ingredients" that bread does. It lacks the most essential ingredient of all: heat. Without heat bread dough cannot undergo the chemical reactions necessary to transform its constituent elements (yeast, flour, water) into bread.

Embryos, on-the-other-hand, do not change their chemical composition while they gestate. They don't "bake." An embryo is a human being before it becomes an embryo, and it is a human being as it passes from the embryonic stage into a more complex human with cells that are differentiated into its various organ systems. The complexity is fueled and supported via its placental connection to its living mother. The embryo isn't, at one point, "dough" and at another point "bread."

An embryo is a human being. If frozen, it waits for a womb in which to gestate. If unfrozen, unless it is in a womb, it will die immediately. While in a womb, it is at the beginning stage of its human existence. If left unmolested it will gestate there until it is born. After it is born ir remains a human being. At no time does an embryo "change" into a human being. It is a human being from the very moment it comes into existence.

Since you (apparently) don't agree with this formulation, please let us know when it is precisely that the embryonic "bread dough" is transformed into embryonic "bread."

[Alexandra]

Michael,

As I said bear with me, you may think that philosophy wise I am wrong, but you may actually find that I am only wrong in the eyes of the law, and of course science will no doubt ride tandem. (At which point you chuckle and say, yes, and what else is there?)

So let me continue. Let us try to rewind back as to where this comes from, I am truly interested. When was it decided, and what were the underpinning factors of that decision, namely the determination of when the embryo becomes human. And on what basis that determination was made, what is the history?

[Michael Galien]

with 'bole' I of course meant bowl (sorry).

[Michael Galien]

As I understand it they are, but that does not mean it is human life as of yet. You can throw every single ingredient you need to make bread into one big bole, but that does not make it bread: although it has all the ingredients in it.

To be honest, such a reasoning is philophy-wise wrong.

[Alexandra]

David,

I am not much of a scientist, but I would like to dissect a part of your opinion, a little slower if I may, so bear with me.

Would you not say that the genes which are a distinct sequence forming part of a chromosome and therefore the DNA, are already present at the embryo stage?

[Saunders]

David Byron writes:

Sometimes you'd be able to save the zygote only, sometimes the mother only. But sometimes either one can be saved but not both. The law states when that happens you always choose to kill the zygote. Why?

Um. How does the zygote live if the mother is dead? If you “choose to save the zygote,” and the mother dies, then the zygote also dies. That is the point, and why it is a Hobson’s choice.

I never expect anyone to answer the burning building and the petridish either.

I answered your question. Others did as well. Just because you didn’t like the answer doesn’t mean we didn’t provide one.

It's a rhetorical question designed to point out that nobody really beleives that the zygote is a human being.

This is the second time that you’ve tried this tack of ignoring what I (and others) have unambiguously stated. Even so, I’ll state it again. I really believe that a zygote is a human being. Does this statement confuse you? BTW, you never answered my question regarding a fetus: If it isn’t human, what is it?

What Did Jesus Do?

I don’t know. Since I am not a Christian I will leave this question to others who are.

[Darrell]

If life doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin?

The "lie" is that life DOESN'T begin at conception. That lie makes abortion "legal," nothing more.

It begins when the DNA of the mother and father can no longer be differentiated. A new life has been created, unlike any that has come before...or will come hence. Maybe it is David Byron, if we go back a few years. I will be your advocate, David, and protect your right to exist! Until you can legally sign the papers stating your true intent.

The husband's right to "withdraw" ended when the sperm hits the egg, so to speak. If it had been done in the "traditional" way, could he insist she have an abortion now that he has changed his mind? Of course not. The courts can insulate him from all future liabilities and responsibilities, just like it does with sperm donors. The man needs to grow a heart.

I wonder if some scientist would like to take a shot at "de-fertilization" should the court hold its ground. It would be a long-shot, but it might be possible. The court should keep that in mind when they issue their final determination. Maybe "Solomon" was right after all...whether or not anyone came to their senses.

[DavidByron]

Because if the lives of two human beings are in imminent jeopardy, and you only get to save one, the Hobson's Choice many make is to save the life of the mother.

By definition, it is not Hobsons choice.

Sometimes you'd be able to save the zygote only, sometimes the mother only. But sometimes either one can be saved but not both. The law states when that happens you always choose to kill the zygote. Why? Logically you should always kill the mother. It just makes no sense from the perspective of someone who actually believes zygotes are people to kill the innocent one each time.

It's ok. I really didn't expect you to answer me. I never expect anyone to answer the burning building and the petridish either. Nor do I expect an answer to this question:

"If abortion is murder then why are the women who have abortions not put on death row? South Dakota has the death penalty. Why is murdering a zygote not treated just like any other murder?"

I don't expect an answer. It's a rhetorical question designed to point out that nobody really beleives that the zygote is a human being. I don't expect you to explain your thinking because I believe there isn't any. The whole "life begins at conception" slogan is just political theatre.

I believe strongly in the death penalty. How else to confirm the sanctity of life than by making those that commit capital murder pay for their crimes with their own lives?

What Did Jesus Do?

[Saunders]

David Byron writes:

It's quite another to talk about killing people on the basis of how well liked they are.

Yes it is, and I never talked about any such thing. I never wrote about killing Saddam Hussein. What I said was taht I considered my wife and child's life to be worth more that Saddam Hussein's life. If I were to chose who first to save from a burning building, I would certainly chose my wife and son before I would choose him. Wouldn't you?

Why should anti-abortion laws have exceptions for the life of the mother?

Because if the lives of two human beings are in imminent jeopardy, and you only get to save one, the Hobson's Choice many make is to save the life of the mother. You speak of these issues academically, when in reality they are not academic questions. As a matter of public policy, when Roe is overturned and most states inact restricts on the abortion license, the "life of the mother" exception will be a small price to pay to preserve millions of innocent human beings from the abortionist's ghastly suction machine.

Even in the case of rape surely the embryo ought to get equal rights.

On this we surely agree. I do not believe in the rape exception to abortion.

We're talking about public policy here, not personal feelings.

Precisely. I believe that abortion should be legal only to save the life of the mother. I believe strongly in the death penalty. How else to confirm the sanctity of life than by making those that commit capital murder pay for their crimes with their own lives? If we let mass murderers live, for instance, we can never repair the rent in the social fabric they have rendered by their crimes. Only the death penalty can expatiate the wounds they inflict on us all.

[RL]

feministsforlife.org

even some "feminists" have common-decency and common-sense, and care about the "common-good".

jenniferoneill.com

: )

[Alexandra]

David,

You misread my reader's email statement and my stance when you label it as 'feminist'. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything of the kind (apart from the fact that I warrant a number of labels, but 'feminist' is most certainly not being one of them), but everything to do with the attempted 'exploration' of biological differences between men and women, which in certain comparisons lead to misleading conclusions if taken into account at face value.

And that is exactly what happened: The trial judge, who dismissed the applicant’s claims on 1 October 2003, emphasized in his judgment that the provisions of the Act applied equally to all patients undergoing IVF treatment, irrespective of their sex, and concluded with an illustration of how the requirement for joint consent could similarly affect an infertile man:

“If a man has testicular cancer and his sperm, preserved prior to radical surgery which renders him permanently infertile, is used to create embryos with his partner; and if the couple have separated before the embryos are transferred into the woman, nobody would suggest that she could not withdraw her consent to treatment and refuse to have the embryos transferred into her. The statutory provisions, like Convention rights, apply to men and women equally.”

Contrary to the Judge's intent to highlight the equality issue on the basis of the obvious biological difference between men and women, and as a consequence, by appealing to the seemingly outrageous notion that she cold be forced to have the embryos implanted, he in fact achieves the opposite: The man can find a 'surrogate mother' who is prepared to give birth to the child, rendering the 'shockvalue' of the illustration null and void.

Of course, this doesn't affect the issue of choice.

In fairness, it should be said, that both enjoy the privilege to withdraw up until the point when the embryo is implanted. We were of course focused on the plight of Ms Evans, who I believe was not in a lucid state of mind to consider this in it's implications at the time of signing.

By the way no one would ever get even remotely close to being banned on this site for discussing men's rights or for that matter feminist's rights.

[slowtrain]

Not just insensitivity, but selfishness, considering that the man was once an embryo and someone did not run from the responsibility that came with giving him a chance to be. This is not the essence of freedom, it is is a warped idea of freedom, and such freedom can not long endure, because it is intrinsically fatalistic.

[slowtrain]

Of course he may just not want to be a father or not want to have his ex- back in his life. This is a question of his fundamental freedoms.

Well, he is already a father, whether you agree or not. It is just that he does not want his child to live. Freedom is not without limitation, where one's freedom ends is where another's begins and vice versa. It is macabre that the embryo (a very young human) has been completely discounted from the equation. Going by the insensitive that is at display, we may very well be witnessing a self fulfilling prophecy emanating from a lie.

[DavidByron]

The published opinion quotes the British opinion,
Motherhood could surely not be forced on [the applicant] and likewise fatherhood cannot be forced on [J], especially as in the present case it will probably involve financial responsibility in law for the child as well.

[DavidByron]

I still don’t see how Mr. Johnson could be harmed by Ms. Evans desire to have a child, especially since he can easily be absolved of any responsibility for the child.

No he'd have to pay CS.

Of course he may just not want to be a father or not want to have his ex- back in his life. This is a question of his fundamental freedoms.

[slowtrain]

Michael, if my comments offended you, I apologize. My goal was not to offend you or anyone; it profits me nothing to do so. However, as far as I am concerned, our belief means nothing if we are not prepared to stand firm for it and if we all too easily succumb to every notion thrown at us with an oversize label that reads “scientific” or “science says”. We cannot acquiesce, even reluctantly, to anything presented as "science", unless it is proven. We should be very clear when we as Christians cite unproven and controversial scientific claims, especially when we don’t agree with such claims on scientific grounds. Let me be clear, I am not directing this at you.

No doubt, science has its place in the human affairs. After all, according to the book of Genesis, God gave man the authority to possess and subdue the earth, meaning to master and control nature, not destroy it. And you cannot control something you don’t understand—science is the tool to understand nature, as to control it. The point I am trying to make is that true science is not anti-God, anti-Christian or anti-Judeo-Christian morality; in fact, it ultimately affirms them, even though some people like to talk about morality as if it is some abstract, indiscernible and meaningless imagination. However, science is by no means the sole arbiter of truth. In fact, it has its limitations, which we shall not go into here, and it has been far too frequently exploited, as it is in this case.

Science is about discovery. When a scientist (or anyone) set out to discover sometime that is previously unknown, there are three possibilities open to the investigator. The first, and the most rare; is that the investigator is able to discover everything about the object of the investigation, depending of the complexity of the object and the availability of evidence. The second, and the most common, is that investigator is able to discover something(s) about the object. The proportion of what is discovered in relation to the whole, and the particularity of what is discovered is critically important in establishing a valid conclusion. The third possible outcome is that the investigator is unable to discover anything about the object of the investigation. The problem is that some scientists believe that have to present sometime, even if there is no real basis for it. For example, all the wonderful but unconfirmed things we hear about the embryonic stem cell. Isn’t ironic that there is no so much hype about the embryonic stem cell holding the key to solving all intractable degenerative human health conditions, yet the same people argue that the embryo is not human.

On the National Public Radio (NPR) research news that aired on May 13, 2005, NPR science correspondent, Christopher Joyce interviewed some scientists about a new exhibit of dinosaurs at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. One of the scientists said, “There are no real truths in science, it just the best answers you can come up with, based on the best evidence available.” Unfortunately, such evidence is frequently manipulated or manufactured to satisfy illegitimate political exigencies or idiosyncrasies, in the name of legality.

This ruling is wrong, however one looks at it. It involves two independent choices on one life; one choice is for life and the other is not. The question is, which choice is more valid than the other, considering end product of each choice. I still don’t see how Mr. Johnson could be harmed by Ms. Evans desire to have a child, especially since he can easily be absolved of any responsibility for the child.

[DavidByron]

My wife and son's life is worth more to me than Saddam Hussein's life. I hope you feel the same way.

I'm sorry but I cannot agree with you and I am surprised you say this. I cannot consider you pro-life. I guess I never asked if you consider yourself that way. It's one thing to say you know your familly and love them. It's quite another to talk about killing people on the basis of how well liked they are.

And this is not a hypothetical question at all. It relates to any anti-abortion law. Why should anti-abortion laws have exceptions for the life of the mother? It is a judgement that says the so-called human in the womb is always worth less than the mother. Why? She knew what she was getting into; the zygote didn't. She had a choice; the zygote didn't. She could reasonably anticipate that her actions would lead to a pregnancy which might endanger the embryo. In all things she is the adult. So since when do we kill children over the adult that caused the problem? Even in the case of rape surely the embryo ought to get equal rights. If we take seriously all this nonsense about it being a person.

And then where does it end? Saddam isn't worth much as a life? What about other people you don't like? Maybe someone says no muslim is worth much or no asian. Maybe someone says no Iraqi is worth as much as an American. We're talking about public policy here, not personal feelings.

[DavidByron]

By the way...
I'm not a men's rights advocate but I have to play that role a lot because usually nobody else will and I know a lot about it. Now bring up the topic of men's rights on the average liberal blog and you'll get banned and banned quickly so I was curious what the feeling is on the right.

What Alexandra is saying here sounds feminist to me in the sense that she's considering the feelings of the woman but not giving consideration in my view to the rights of the man. I'm very glad the judges were having none of that.

So often I've seen pro-life and pro-choice groups both trying to blame men and both trying to seize the mantle of representing women on the issue of abortion. Are people on the right supportive of men's rights? I haven't seen much evidence of it although many people who are men's advocates seem to get shoved towards them simply because Democrats are so hostile.

This sentences seems strange to me:

The court essentially gives males an enormous amount of control in these types of artificial insemination situations. For up until the point of implantation, he controls whether the woman will be allowed the opportunity to become pregnant.

Pregnant by him that is. Is this not an odd way to describe a process where both individuals involved have exactly equal say?

[Saunders]

Why? and yes, to me this absolutely implies you do not consider embryos to be humans.

Well, since I have told you directly, unambiguously, and in no uncertain terms that I believe an embryo to be 100% human, it is a complete mystery how you believe that my statement "absolutely implies" otherwise.

The issue of the "five embryos vs one child" is a completely hypothetical exercise, and of very little value since it would never happen in the real world. That is the reason I posed the more interesting dilemma, that of the five otherwise-healthy-but-not-ambulatory elderly people in place of the embryos. In both cases I would choose to save the two-year-old girl. I hope that you don't believe that this "absolutely implies" that I don't consider the elderly people human.

An embryo isn't human yet.

If it isn't human, what is it?

Why is one human life worth more than another to you?

Because it is. My wife and son's life is worth more to me than Saddam Hussein's life. I hope you feel the same way.

[DavidByron]

If the embryo comes to be destroyed then any interested party could file in it's interests I suppose. Or try. It is a separate matter. If the sexes had been reversed would anyone say the woman was killing the embryo for refusing to get pregnant? Would you force a pregnancy?

But I think the judges made a good decision there too. An embryo isn't human yet.

This petridish in the burning building question is something I've asked on and off for ten years or so. The reason this question is important is that I have the impression that for all the sincere concern about the issue that pro-life folks have I just don't believe they really think the zygote is a person. That whole 'conception = life' thing seems to be artificial. I just don't think anyone really believes it.

Saunders wrote,
the child's life is "more valuable" than the lives of the embryos, and so it is. But that doesn't mean that the embryos are not human beings deserving of some legal protection

Why is one human life worth more than another to you? From a pro-life point of view I don't understand this at all. I guess it was five. Five human lives (embryos) worth less than one baby. Why? and yes, to me this absolutely implies you do not consider embryos to be humans.

Oh, btw, I am also European (but living in the US). I think the decision will be popular in Europe.

[North by Northwest]

Michael,

It seems you have beaten me to the post ;-)

David,

Alexandra makes a good case why Ms Evans did in fact not have "...her eyes wide open on this". But I also agree with you that given the plea, it didn't and couldn't have an impact on the verdict.

I don't however understand how you can say that "it wouldn't matter if it was [human] because this decision doesn't in any way harm the embryo." In addition to the fact that the Embryo has to be destroyed when one party withdraws consent, Ms Evans is also fighting the law which prescribes that it has to be destroyed after 5 years, irrespective of either party's consent or withdrawal?

[North by Northwest]

Saunders

Let me be clear; Europe, and the US as well for that matter, are losing the demographic numbers game. It's just a question of when, not if. This is a topic of great concern to me, especially in relation to Islam, as you rightly point out.

The story about Evans vs Johnstone and the law in question is IMO really all about (a) Europe's reluctance to legislate from the bench--something we clearly appreciate--and (b) about the equality of both parties right to chose whether or not to have a child together.

And of course it all hinges on the status of an embryo. Now, both you and slowtrain make your case in favor of it being human from inception, which would solve the E vs J case in a heart beat; the equality issue of choice would no longer be relevant.

Personally, I side with you both on this one with regards to the embryo question, especially in view of what slowtrain correctly states: "Therefore, if we must err; it must be on the side of life, not against life." But that cannot have any bearing on the Justices decision, which is the reason why I called it a tangent. If it did, they'd effectively do an Roe-v-Wade. This issue needs to be resolved in Parliament.

I find Alexandra's question intriguing as to whether a different plea could have delivered a win for Ms Evans. Michael touches on that, but IMO not persuasively enough. I think it was a mistake for the Evans' legal team to take the moral high road. That set them up against the issue of equality of choice. Straight forward contractual case law would not have challenged existing statutes, but benefited from tons of detailed precedent.

Slowtrain

"How can Michael claim to be a Christian and yet believe that humans descended from reptiles?".

You'll find he didn't actually say that. Michael clearly stated that the Embryo is not human ACCORDING to science and that "policy, thus legal matters, should not depend on religion. It should be based on science".

You're both right and wrong at the same time.

Harriet Miers said it best in her 1993 speech to a Dallas women's group, where she talked about abortion, the separation of church and state, and how the issues play out in the legal system.:

"'The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual woman's right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion. Those seeking to resolve such disputes would do well to remember that 'we gave up' a long time ago on 'legislating religion or morality,' she said. And 'when science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act.'"

[Saunders]

It was an open and shut case I think and decided properly.

I'm reminded of the MASH theme..."Suicide is Painless." This is yet another nail in the coffin of European society and culture.

[DavidByron]

It was an open and shut case I think and decided properly. An embryo is not a human in law but it wouldn't matter if it was because this decision doesn't in any way harm the embryo. If you consider it alive, well then it's alive still.

Don't blame the man for the woman's informed decision. She knew of the option to freeze ova. She decided against it. She knew he could change his mind -- it was part of the agreement they both signed and apparently it was verbally underlined and emphasised for her too. She went ahead regardless. She had her eyes wide open on this.

[Michael Galien]

wow,

Okay I will go into some of the arguments made against my opinion, although, on a personal note: I do not like it when people imply I am not a Christian. I respect your opinion, but I think it would not be too much to ask of you to respect my political and legal opinion as well, without questioning my faith. That is not a political nor a legal 'argument' that is simply an attack on a person / character.

Slowtrain said:
"How can Michael claim to be a Christian and yet believe that humans descended from reptiles?"
(I will not go into the 'claim to be a Christian part of this sentence for the reasons I just mentioned. I know how good my relationship with the Lord is and that is more important than your assumptions).
"yet believe that humans descended from reptiles":
How did you all of a sudden come to that conclusion? Where did I say that? Where did I even imply that? I only said that an embryo simply is not a human life. And frankly, that is the scientific opinion (at least here in Europe, I, of course, can not decide whether or not the same thing goes for the US).

I did not say whether or not I believe it is a human being or not; I said that science says so. So quite to the contrary, because I made clear in my post that this was not my personal (Christian) opinion but my legal and political opinion you could come to another conclusion.
In other words: If you read what I wrote carefully, you could very well come to the conclusion that my personal opinion is different from my legal and political opinion.

With this:
"Michael was quite clear. His beliefs as a Christian aside, he is quoting the letter of the law in Europe. To ask him now to defend a European law, simply because he is European, is a little far reaching to say the least.

Furthermore going off on a tangent about the state of Europe's principals as a result of their laws is not helpful to this discussion, otherwise we can all quite easily go off on a wild goose chase about the state of our own backyard."

I completely agree. Thank you.

I will go into the culture in Europe a little bit:
The situation is getting tense here; quite a lot of tension between 'caucasian Europeans / Dutch' and (Arab) Immigrants. We have harsh discussions about the role of Islam in our societies and are not afraid to adress them (Ayaan Hirshi Ali is, for instance Dutch and from the political party VVD (for which I vote)). We all know that muslim extremism could be a real danger, but luckily some of us also understand that looking at 'them' as, like I said 'them' is not usefull. Instead of that we should regard 'them' as simply a group of individuals; most of them with great talents; they can add something to our country. Besides that there are also individuals who are extremist muslims; they must be dealt with. I can assure you that the government is dealing with zero tolerance towards them).

Furthermore: I am not the 'typical Dutch' nor European person. I am way to conservative / liberal (which are, mostly, the same here; they both in essence mean small government, lots of freedom) in my political views and in my personal life I am not 'regular' as well: Most Dutch think there is 'something like a higher force' but that's about it. I however am a firm 'believer' in Christ Jesus. Lets just say that when you read and study the Bible, you're quite an exemption. Besides that I am way too focused on being succesful and being the best I can be (again very undutch).
So about our culture: I think about that myself as well now and then. The difference being that I do not believe the government should change people - the government can not bring people to salvation - the Church however, cán. Sadly the Church is not as large and 'powerful' as it once was. On the other hand; that is slowly but surely changing.

Muslim immigrants: I am not afraid of them: most of them can add something very valuable to our nation (is that not how your country became the most powerful nation in the world? By allowing immigrants from whatever nation to 'move in' and challenge them to be the best they can be?).

Scientifically an embryo is nothing more but a, like I said, potential of human life. Again: personally I am, for instance, against abortion ánd euthenesia. But politically I think both should be legal (free will and stuff?).

Alexandra (by the way: are your parents immigrants? Your last name, in your profile, sounds very European. German or Austrian to be more precise):
"What I would be incredibly interested in, is how you would have argued the case in view of my suggestion in the main text. Is there a possibility in a European court of law, to argue in this instance that it was an express term of their agreement that consent would not be withheld, despite the fact that withdrawal of consent was possible any time prior to the embryos being implanted? Would that for example have stood a better chance of success?

The 9 Justices' opinions in the judgment, suggest to me that it would have been a possibility. Certainly the way this was argued by the Applicant's attorneys the Justices could not rule any differently."

First off: thanks for the flattering words; I am, however, just a 2nd year law student not a lawyer as of yet ;)

Well; when I read your post and all, I was thinking the same thing. This is a difficult question. 'Oral agreements' are just as binding legally as 'written agreements / contracts'.

So to answer your question: Would that for example have stood a better chance of success?
is a simple 'yes'.

Would it succeed?
This would be a very difficult question. One I do not know the answer to. The main problem being that even when you 'agree to something', in principle, written law goes 'beyond it'. In other words; the right of the male to 'choose' whether or not he wants to start a family could very well be stronger. Besides that; the 'written agreement' still said they could withdraw as I understand it. In other words; why didn't they change that contract?
Then again an important legal value is 'good faith' - even though something is being stated in a contract, if one party assures the other party of something that other party should be able to depend on it. This is, of course, very important in every modern society.

Therefore: I simply do not know whether or not it would succeed; as I see it; there would be a serious split in the court about it. Some would emphasize the 'right of the man to decide about having children or not' the others would emphasize the 'oral agreement' and 'good faith'.
I can only say this: It would be véry close and highly controversial.

I hope I answered your questions somewhat.

[slowtrain]

Saunders,

You are absolutely correct in challenging Michael's comments. As far as I am concerned, one is not a Christian because one says so, but because of what one believes, stands for and what one does.

Michael wrote: “The thing is that an embryo is nót a human life according to science. I am a Christian and as a Christian I might think otherwise, but policy, thus legal matters, should not depend on religion. It should be based on science.”

How can Michael claim to be a Christian and yet believe that humans descended from reptiles? This notion that an embryo is not human is as fallacious as science being all knowing and infallible. Even legitimate Science and serious scientists admit that scientific conclusions are based on the amount and accuracy of factual information available, and how correctly those facts are interpreted. Not too long ago, there existed the scientific idea that “an atom is an indivisible particle of an element” and that light is an electromagnetic wave. Now, those theories no longer hold. The limitations of scientific conclusions are not limited to only basic principles, as the nature of the atom, or the nature of matter, it is indeed far reaching and extends into every aspect of modern life, from the Metric system to the drugs designed to cure diseases. The thing that makes the “theory of evolution” different is that it involves human life. We can afford to be wrong about the nature of atom or the nature of light, but it is entirely a different ball game when it comes to life. Therefore, if we must err; it must be on the side of life, not against life.

Moreover, the concept of Evolution, at least as Darwin propounded, has failed every basic principle of science—observable process, reproducible evidence, etc., hence it cannot be legitimately regarded as science, as to be the basis for policy. L.H. Mathews wrote, "In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved.” Louis Agassiz, a Harvard University professor and pioneer in Glaciations has been quoted as saying, “The theory of evolution is a scientific mistake.” Elsewhere, Agassiz was quoted as also saying, “[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes.”

Evolutionists often begin their arguments with “we believe” and rarely with “we know”. Evolution overwhelmingly relies on faith more than factual evidence—the same reason for dismissing religion in scientific discuss. The speculative nature of Darwin’s “theory” was all too clear for any objective scientists to see. According to L. Merson Davies, "It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone”. Many scientists agree that it would have been very easy to disprove Darwin’s “theory”, in the least, force it to be re-presented as a hypothesis. Harvard Professor, Stephen Jay Gould wrote, "I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know.” Even Darwin himself, acknowledged the philosophical and speculative nature of his postulation. In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard Professor of biology, Darwin wrote, "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."

We know the hash that has been presented as evidence of evolution, but none of the so-called “facts of evolution” was ever observed. And don’t talk to me about diseases become resistant to antibiotics, the peppered moth, the Galapagos tortoises and the Galapagos finches. Darwin didn’t even know they were finches and serious scientist have declared his claims a fraud. The so-called theory of evolution, which in fact, is merely a hypothesis, is maintained by the continuity created by faith and imagination, a sort of magical thinking, if you will.

From the beginning, the concept of biological evolution has been sustained by historical arguments, consistently built on the so-called historical evidence or activity indices. Science cannot be based on historical evidence alone. No one was there to see the process of evolution take place and no one has been able to reproduce that process. The argument: “Just because we didn’t see it happen or just because we cannot duplicate the process, does not mean it didn’t happen,” is an unscientific argument and unacceptable. Religion often asks us to believe without physical evidence, and so does evolution. Religion has some historical argument to support its claim, and so does evolution. Science deals with the present—things we can see, hear, touch, taste, feel, and processes we can observe and reproduce.

Michael also wrote: “Because the embryo is nót human life as of yet (merely having the potential to becóme human life) it is not entitled to Human Rights. It is that simple.” What an absurdity. If “the embryo is not a human life as of yet”, what is it?

You wrote:

"This "European" attitude toward humans is indeed portentous to the very future of Europe. The fact, for instance, that most Europeans are not having children at replacement rates (while their Muslim neighbors are) is a demographic ticking time bomb. When I read stories like this, where the legal establishment prevents a woman from gestating her own embryo in her own body, I get very discouraged...even depressed. Europeans are acting insane, i.e., doing everything they can to ensure they'll be gone from the planet in a few short decades."

I am delighted to hear this from someone else, because a similar comment made on Daniel Pipes’ blog on February 14 drew the ire of some Europeans, who vociferously condemned the comment, yet did not deny the issues it raised. Perhaps, a consideration of a pivotal statement made by a Aldous Huxley, the grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and arch promoter (a.k.a. “Darwin’s Bulldog”), and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley would help us understand the root of the apparent irrationality among Europeans that you noted in the above excerpt from your comments.

Huxley wrote, “I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption …The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do…For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”

[Saunders]

North by Northwest writes:

To ask [Michael] now to defend a European law, simply because he is European, is a little far reaching to say the least.

I didn't ask Michael to defend a European law, he did this on his own volition:

As a European I must say I am 100% convinced the Court ruled the right way

My comment criticized Michael's defense as, among other things, self-destructive and nonsensical, especially given the demographic precipice that (most of) Christian Europe is staring over. Why you consider this a "tangent" is a mystery to me. Perhaps you can elaborate.

Michael's defense rests on another contention that can only be characterized as preposterous, i.e., that an embryo is not human. This is a sentiment I suspect is shared by a vast majority of Europeans of his generation. My point was, and I believe it is more than germane to the topic, that this attitude reveals a moral hollowness in the European soul that if not arrested and reversed, will result in the subsumation of Christian Europe into a Muslim social order that will reverse the centuries of social and political advances made by in Europe since the Enlightenment.

That is why this case is more important than that of a mere human interest story, and why I don't believe a discussion of what this case signifies for the future of Europe is "tangential" to the topic at hand.

[North by Northwest]

Saunders,

Michael was quite clear. His beliefs as a Christian aside, he is quoting the letter of the law in Europe. To ask him now to defend a European law, simply because he is European, is a little far reaching to say the least.

Furthermore going off on a tangent about the state of Europe's principals as a result of their laws is not helpful to this discussion, otherwise we can all quite easily go off on a wild goose chase about the state of our own backyard.

[Saunders]

Michael...

The thing is that an embryo is nót a human life according to science.

It most certainly is a human life. My God, man! You were once an embryo, and when you were an embryo, you were human. An embryo isn't a "potential human"...it is a "potential human adult." It is as human as you are, as I am, or as any other living human being...it is simply smaller.

This "European" attitude toward humans is indeed portentous to the very future of Europe. The fact, for instance, that most Europeans are not having children at replacement rates (while their Muslim neighbors are) is a demographic ticking time bomb. When I read stories like this, where the legal establishment prevents a woman from gestating her own embryo in her own body, I get very discouraged...even depressed. Europeans are acting insane, i.e., doing everything they can to ensure they'll be gone from the planet in a few short decades.

The world is watching in morbid fascination, and considerable alarm, as Europe is committing suicide before our very eyes. This story is yet another toll of its death knell. The fact that you find yourself so ready to defend this insanity in the name of "science" (God, what a misunderstood term that is) is indicative that, like so many of your continental compatriots, you’ve taken a deep draught of the Kool Aid that is destroying your culture, your future, and your very lives.

[Alexandra]

Michael,

First of all, great to see you, welcome.

Secondly, this is a tough one for you, as a European man of law, and therefore certainly in your professional life a man of science, your lines of argument are drawn.

What I would be incredibly interested in, is how you would have argued the case in view of my suggestion in the main text. Is there a possibility in a European court of law, to argue in this instance that it was an express term of their agreement that consent would not be withheld, despite the fact that withdrawal of consent was possible any time prior to the embryos being implanted? Would that for example have stood a better chance of success?

The 9 Justices' opinions in the judgment, suggest to me that it would have been a possibility. Certainly the way this was argued by the Applicant's attorneys the Justices could not rule any differently.

[Michael Galien]

Alexandra,

I am way off compared to most people here on this one. As a European I must say I am 100% convinced the Court ruled the right way. The thing is that an embryo is nót a human life according to science. I am a Christian and as a Christian I might think otherwise, but policy, thus legal matters, should not depend on religion. It should be based on science.

The only thing you cóúld say is that it has the 'potential' to become a human life. With that, I agree, it has the potential. But 'sperm' itself has a potential to create human life as well, where do we draw the line? 'Common sense'? What's common sense to one, is not common sense to the other, especially relating to difficult topics like this one.

Because the embryo is nót human life as of yet (merely having the potential to becóme human life) it is not entitled to Human Rights. It is that simple. The father however, ís a human being, thus entitled to human rights.

This means it is his choice whether or not he wants a child with his ex-wife. He, obviously, does not. 'He assured her that he would not leave her and wanted a child with her' is not a solid legal argumentation: Yes he did at that period in time, but obviously their relationship changed and they even split up. At that moment you can not say 'well, you promissed her you'd have children with her'. Where do you draw the line? After coming to the conclusion an embryo should not be regarded as 'human life', the existence of the frozen embryos becomes, legally, irrelevant in a case like this. Thus, the only thing remaining is 'you promised'.
At that moment the right to create your own family, or to nót create a family with someone, is of course 'stronger' than the 'promise'.

With regards to:
"It is interesting that the Mr. Johnson’s objection is not purely on moral grounds (i.e. not a conscientious objection), but more on legal grounds. This speaks volumes on the world we live in today."
Yes it says a lot. It says that we are living in a 'rechtsstaat' as we say here. Best translated into 'lawstate'.

Like Justice Antonin Scalia once said judges are the worst people in the world to decide what's right and what's wrong.

[slowtrain]

Stefan,

You made a very good point:

"The most obvious point is conception. That is when biological science unequivocally states that a human organism exists (even serious abortion advocates have given up their futile attempts to argue against that one). You cannot “be” and at the same time “not be”. An embryo is either human life or it is some type of animal or plant but science clearly shows it is alive."

Unfortunately, evolutionary "science" seems to be driving everything these days and many “scientists”, policy makers and interest groups believe that an embryo is, to use your phrase, “some type of animal”. In fact, contrary to your assessment, serious abortion advocates believe this more than ever. It remains their rallying cry, beside the superficial “choice” mantra. The secular and largely humanistic society, which Europe is, essentially regards evolutionary "science" as its new religion. Hence, many people in this society believe in Darwin’s characterization of the human embryo as a reptilian progenitor to the human being.

Darwin’s claim is that the human embryo passes through stages resembling the stages of the embryo of a reptile, suggesting that the successive stages "signify closely allied species". According to an article by David Quammen, in the November 2004 edition of the National Geographic magazine, ‘Darwin wrote, “the embryo is the animal in its less modified state” and that state “reveals the structure of its progenitor.”

This claim implies that a particular stage in a nine-month pregnancy (e.g. one month, first trimester, etc.) is equivalent to the period (millions of years) it took a species to evolve to another (its successor). Hence, the nine months required for a human being to develop, is essentially equivalent to millions of years it took for evolution (perhaps, from amphibious reptile to human) to occur. In other words, the nine-month gestation period is only the compression of millions of years in time, in order of a very high magnitude.

There is no doubt that this is the sentiment that underlies the rulings of the courts in this matter, and continues to propel abortion in general, with such sweeping velocity. As I said in an earlier comment, it is not about truth, it is all about definition and definition is tangential to the one who defines.

[Stefan]

Just to take Saunder’s excellent point further, the size of an embryo has nothing to do with its value as human life. If size did matter then a short stumpy fellow would be “less human” than a basketball player or a large, fat man and most women would be of lesser value than most men. If one’s level of consciousness mattered in one’s human value then a severely mentally handicapped person would be of less value than a healthy one, a new born would have less value than an adolescent, and a person who was knocked unconscious would be temporarily less human until they came to. These may seem like absurd examples but they are merely logical conclusions. This story also raises this question: if a woman has the right to have a child and the father has no right to demand it be destroyed then why would that same father have no right to protect that same child if it was the mother who wished to destroy it? These are prickly questions which would be cleared up if society could agree upon the point in which an unborn child has his or her own rights that cannot be taken away by either parent. The most obvious point is conception. That is when biological science unequivocally states that a human organism exists (even serious abortion advocates have given up their futile attempts to argue against that one). You cannot “be” and at the same time “not be”. An embryo is either human life or it is some type of animal or plant but science clearly shows it is alive. Human life is one continuous process: fertilized egg, embryo, new born, toddler, small child, surly teenager, young adult, middle-aged person, senior citizen. These are distinctly different stages of physical development and consciousness that all human life progresses through. In which case, Ms. Evans should not be stopped from nurturing her own offspring into argumentative 16 year olds and beyond. If the state is to be the protector and defender of basic human rights (it is not the origin of those rights) then it must never allow one individual’s rights to trump another’s

[Alexandra]

Michael, when the time expires in October, they'll get destroyed. That's why Ms Evans is so much up against the clock.

I have just written an UPDATE to the post with my opinion on the Judgment (which in itself is a good read and I provide the URL).

An email from a reader, pretty much sums up how I feel about this particular case:

"I believe the embryos in this particular situation do indeed have such a right and the reason is because, for lack of a better word, the father initially consented to the fertilization of the eggs for the purpose of implantation and, consequently, the generation of life. Fertilization is the key: up until the point of fertilization, consent could be rescinded. But once those eggs were fertilized, that changed everything.

The court essentially gives males an enormous amount of control in these types of artificial insemination situations. For up until the point of implantation, he controls whether the woman will be allowed the opportunity to become pregnant. She has no enforceable right to compel implantation even if she relied on promises he made to give consent. What an imbalance of power!

I suppose the only smart course of action any woman in this situation would have would be to have a contract drawn up that would void any withdrawal of consent but even that is dicey as this same court could rule that a right to not be a parent supercedes the provisions of any contract -- in other words a person cannot contract-away his/her fundamental human rights."