Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 04/07/2010 3:27:53 PM PDT by NYer
STRASBOURG, April 7, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has issued a Chamber judgment that Austria’s laws restricting in vitro fertilization procedures are “discriminatory” and violate the right to a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Seven judges of the Court ruled that the Austrian Artificial Procreation Act preventing the use of donated sperm or ova in artificial fertilization procedures violates the “right to respect for family life” of two married couples who suffer from infertility.
With a few exceptions, Austrian law allows only “homologous” in vitro fertilization techniques that use the sperm and ova (technically “gametes”) of the couple who want a child. The restrictions were put in place to protect children from some of the strange family relations suffered by many IVF children created in countries that allow gamete donation from unrelated third parties.
The law was also intended to protect women from exploitation, a concern of many ethicists who see a danger in creating a market demand for female gametes in the multi-million dollar global artificial procreation industry.
The couples had originally applied to the Austrian Constitutional Court, that ruled in October 1999 that the law did interfere with the right to respect for family life, but that this was justified in the interests of protecting children from the “unusual personal relations” common with such procedures, such as having both a genetic mother and a “surrogate” mother.
The ECHR wrote that the law needs to be formulated “in a coherent manner” and that the judges were “not convinced” by the government’s argument that a complete prohibition was the only way to prevent the risks associated with donor gametes.
In a media release, the ECHR said of the “unusual family relationships” argument, that “family relations which do not follow the typical parent-child relationship based on a direct biological link, were nothing new.”
“They had existed since the institution of adoption, which created a family relationship not based on descent but on contract.”
The court suggested that there are “no insurmountable obstacles” to bringing such relationships into the “general framework of family law.”
The court awarded the couples €10,000 (US $13,370) each.
Under the Court’s rules, any party in a case may request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court. The Austrian government has three months to make the request. If a panel of five judges rules that the case affects the interpretation or application of the Convention or is a “serious issue of general importance,” the Grand Chamber will issue a final judgment. The applicants in the Austrian IVF case lodged their complaint in May 2000.
Comparing the right to IVF to a child’s right to a “normal family” is nonsense. If there is no IVF, the child in question won’t exist. Legally barring certain children from existing because they wouldn’t be raised by their genetic parents doesn’t seem to be a pro-life proposition.
.
Time for Austria to secede.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
The flip side of human beings deciding who can die (abortion, doctor assisted suicide) is who gets to live - IVF. Of course, IVF also contains both sides, as more embryos are created than get "used", so some always get killed. This article is another example of why playing God is never a good thing, why Science is not God (just because something CAN be done, doesn't mean it SHOULD be done), and why natural law is best. A side point (actually pretty important) is that the idea that "I want something, therefore I must have it" is not what human life is for. Sometimes people want a child and cannot conceive. Sometimes people already have plenty of children and one gets conceived without planning.
Personal desires as in "I want this, I want that, and I want the other thing" are not the ultimate rule of the universe. God has set down rules for human beings to follow, and one of them is "Do not kill". Since IVF always involves killing, it is morally wrong. There are other reasons as well.
God did NOT say that.
Okay, say it in your own words. Isn’t “Thou shalt not kill” one of the Ten Commandments?
Okay, thou shalt not murder?
What am I not getting?
Murder is the unjustified taking of another human life. Killing includes slaughtering cattle, chickens, and broccoli. It also includes using lethal force to defend your own life or the lives of others.
There is no Biblical injunction against that.
Okay.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.