Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 11/15/2006 1:50:53 PM PST by NYer
DUBLIN (Reuters) - A woman lost her fight to have a child without the consent of her estranged husband on Wednesday when an Irish judge ruled frozen embryos did not enjoy the same constitutional right to life as those carried in the womb.
Justice Brian McGovern said most agreed frozen embryos resulting from infertility treatment deserved special respect but ruled "the right to life of the unborn" in the Irish constitution did not extend to them.
"I have come to the conclusion that the three frozen embryos are not 'unborn'," the judge said in a landmark High Court ruling complicated by the fact that existing legislation does not define "unborn".
"There has been no evidence ... to establish that it was ever in the mind of the people voting on the Eight Amendment to the Constitution that 'unborn' meant anything other than a fetus or child within the womb," McGovern added.
The judgment means spare embryos frozen after successful in vitro fertilization (IVF) in 2002 will not be returned to the mother.
She had argued an embryo's right to life meant she could be implanted with them despite the objections of her clinic and of a husband who left her four years ago. The couple are separated but remain man and wife.
The case has sparked heated debate in predominantly Catholic Ireland where abortion is outlawed except in cases where the mother's life could be endangered.
WHERE LIFE BEGINS
Catholic Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin said the case raised "serious concerns" about the level of protection afforded to human life under the Irish constitution.
"Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception," Martin said in a statement, referring to the Catholic Church's doctrine on human life.
"From the first moment of his or her existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person."
McGovern, who has asked the media not to reveal the identity of the couple, acknowledged there was much disagreement about when life begins but that he could not resolve that issue.
"What is clear is that a debate which has existed over centuries continues to this day even with the major advances which have been made in medicine and science," he said.
"Even within different religions, there can be disagreements as to when genetic material becomes a 'human being'. But it is not the function of the courts to choose between competing religious and moral beliefs."
It was now up to Irish lawmakers to decide what steps should be taken to establish the legal status of embryos resulting from IVF treatment, he said.
The woman was married in March 1992 and had a son in 1997. She lost two thirds of her right ovary during the removal of a cyst shortly after the birth and had a daughter in October 2002 following the IVF treatment.
Interesting use of the word 'them' in the context of denying their humanity.
If they aren't human, wouldn't 'those' be more accurate?
Apparently, life, under the Irish Constitution, is cheap.
Well, not as cheap as it is in the state of Missouri, to name just one of 50 examples that come readily to mind.
I wish our constitution gave as much protection as the Irish constitution, even if it does have a loophole for frozen embryos.
But think about this -- if a frozen embryo was treated by law as identical to a fetus in a womb, then you could be prosecuted for murder I guess if you made a lab error and killed one of them, or if the power went out and the cryogenics stopped working.
Can we really say that a lab mishap with an embryo is the same as taking action to kill a growing fetus in a womb?
Yes, actually, that's the Catholic position, which is why the Church opposes in vitro fertilization, because it's virtually impossible to do without killing some of the embryos in the process.
This predicament would not have arisen if the couple in question had not turned to an unnatural procedure for giving birth, and had not also gotten divorced. It was already a mess by the time it got to the court. Nevertheless, the decision was wrong. The fetuses are genetically distinct from the mother and father; they are human; and they are alive, although frozen, since only life can bring forth life.
" if a frozen embryo was treated by law as identical..."
...to a human, then after being frozen 21 years, it could legally drink, vote, and drive.
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Personal Rights
Article 40
3. 3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.
See post #9, it's not really a loophole - it's on shaky ground, but the only way we can reverse the decision is by referenda - otherwise the Irish Supreme Court's decision is final.
referenda = referendum, single not plural.
Is there a point to your flippant comment?
Good.
All embryos are life, right? So Miscariages should involve 911, and everything possible should be tried to save the fetus.
Even if it is one week. Even if it is a little ball of cells, or even one cell.
Right, everyone?
You take pleasure in the death of innocent people??
Yes.
So Miscariages should involve 911, and everything possible should be tried to save the fetus.
Yes.
Even if it is one week. Even if it is a little ball of cells, or even one cell.
Right, everyone?
A human life is a human life, end of story!! Why is that so difficult for you to understand??
--Yes, actually, that's the Catholic position, which is why the Church opposes in vitro fertilization, because it's virtually impossible to do without killing some of the embryos in the process.--
It's practically impossible to try to procreate naturally without having a fertilized eggs die.
Not the Irish Constitution - but the way our Supreme Court and our Government continues to shred it to pieces.
If that is true, then it's by natural causes.
Miscarriages and natural failures to implant are not deliberate killings. Christians believe that God has the power of life and death; we don't.
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.