This story got me thinking. It’s about a woman who was denied the right to use fertilized embryos that she and her ex-husband had frozen before they split up. She was denied because when they split up, her ex-husband revoked his consent. The twist is that she had cancer, and treatment has rendered her infirtile.
There are a few layers to the ethical dilemma this case poses. Of course there are the over-argued issues surrounding ‘right to life’, but I’m not too interested in them. I find the issues outside of that much more interesting. Without these embryos, she cannot conceive a child of her own. But they contain the genetic material of a non-consenting father. Does he have the right to deny her the use of those embryos? Does he have a moral obligation to allow her to use them? Is it morally better to allow the use of the embryos? And if the case had turned out otherwise, similar questions could be asked about the morality and right of using the genetic material of an unconsenting individual.
Furthermore, does this set precedent for men legally forcng women to get abortions because they do not want the child?
Keep in mind I just read this and havent put much thought into it yet… But I dont really see a dilemma here. I dont feel she should have a right to use one of the embryos if the man will not consent. To do so would be to use him without his consent. Although a stretch, it reminds me of rape in a sense. You dont consent to sex and the usage of your body when it comes to rape and in this case the man is not consenting to something of him to be used. Just because part of the embryo came from the woman doesnt mean she has a right to them. Its not just from her and its not just from him. If both are not in consent, the embryos cant be used. It is indeed sad that the woman is now infertile but that has no issue as to whether using the embryo is ethical or not. Perhaps others will have differing views that will change my mind but as of right now, I dont see much dilemma here. I dont think she should be allowed to “use” (whats the right word here?) one of the embryos.
Oh, and about your last question. I would say not in the slightest does this infer that men can make women have abortions. This is completely different. The man and the woman consented to sex. This means the man and woman have accepted the idea that pregnancy is possible (even if not wanted). Thus the man has already given his consent. However, with frozen embryos I do not feel this consent carries over when the relationship ends. I dont see why it would. Saying it does seems to imply that the two people should then also be willing to have sex with each other. To make an embryo, sex is needed. If the man and woman are no longer together nor having sex, this obviously means they do not consent to forming a child together. Using the embryo when the man does not consent seems to be wrong to me because she would be using him and his body to form a child which he has not given consent to make. (as he does in sex) Thus I dont see that the conclusion that men can make women have abortions follows from denying the woman an embryo in the example given.
This is not to say that I think the issue of whether a man has a say in getting an abortion in general is settled and over. Im simply saying that the frozen embryo situation doesnt show that men can tell women to have abortions. I think the situations are completely and totally different and to draw conclusions such as that would be fallacious. (although I will admit, I do see a resemblance in the two situations, but not enough to draw conclusions such as this)
However, the topic of a man having a say in the abortion issue is very interesting and its something I have thought about a lot. Id love to hear others views on both of these issues and their similarities.
Aren’t we stretching it to say that these embryos are somehow still “his” or “hers” or even related to either of them…
Do they have ownership privilages over them? Do they have some business like property right to them? If not, there is no moral question here. These are not a part other either of these people. Unless they signed some kind of contract or some legal binding, I don’t see any problem with her using them without his consent…
Id didn’t read the article, though, so if there is some legal reason that she can’t, I apologize.
My off-the-cuff notion is that it’s a simple issue of property. In the current legal sense a man has no “right” to force a woman to abort a child he doesn’t want; but outside of the womb those embryos are just lumps of cells. In an ironic sense, impregnating herself with his genetic material against his consent would be akin to rape.
I mean I guess it is the same issue as if one of my skin cells that falls off was cloned without my knowledge or consent…is that rape or unethical or any of my business?
It probably would be your business, although that’s an extreme case. If the case mentioned above is the one I’m thinking of, after the split the husband decided he didn’t want children. Under the law he would probably be responsible for child support, too.
Now you could say, with some justification, that the “sex” occured when they decided to fertilize the eggs, but I think that’s not really the most logical answer. Without knowing the details we’re just guessing, but presumably the couple understood at the time that the decision as to whether to use the embryos would be a joint one.
I wouldn’t think of it in terms of “does he/she have ownership over them?” and think more along the lines of “do they have ownership over them?” Which you mentioned…
A few things about this. First, to your question of whether or not they have ownership privileges over the frozen embryos. To that I certainly say yes! If they didn’t, anyone could use them at any time. A woman could walk into the place (wherever they keep these… A sperm bank?) and just take one of the embryos and have a child. If you don’t see something wrong about this, let me know because I think thats fairly evident. (Shes having a baby using the genetic material from two people who have not given her consent. You cant take babies from people without consent, you cant take sperm/eggs from people without consent, and you cant take embryos from people without consent. All pretty clear to me.) I’m sure they signed a form saying the doctors wouldn’t give them away to random people without the donor’s consent as well. I have no evidence to back that up so I could be wrong, but I’m guessing here that they did sign such a form. Someone could look into this if wanted, but I’m confident most will agree with me here. So yes, they do have ownership privileges over the frozen embryos. Most certainly. They are theirs; not mine, not yours, nor anyone else’s.
To keep from having to scroll back up to the quote, Ill restate something you wrote: “these are not a part of either of these people. Unless they signed some kind of contract or some legal binding, I don’t see any problem with her using them without his consent…”
This brings up two issues with me. The first is that you say they aren’t a part of either of these people. I would agree in the literal sense. The embryos are not a part of these people in the sense as, say, their right arm… But they are certainly more a part of them than they are of me in a more figurative sense. (ownership sense perhaps…) The embryos are made of sperm from that single man and the egg of that single woman and no one else. The two parts that made that embryo were at one time part of those two people (in the literal sense) and I definitely think that entitles them to more ownership than, say, me or you. If you are unwilling to admit that, then I have just as much say in what happens to the embryos as the parents. I think we’d both admit that that is ridiculous.
So we are pretty much forced to accept that the two people do indeed have ownership of the embryos and that they are, in some way, a part of those two people. If not, anyone could do what they will with the embryos. However, none of this that you brought up answers whether or not the woman can use the embryos without the man’s consent. I fail to see how the conclusion that she can has been drawn by stating that it is a part of both parents and both have ownership over the embryos. I don’t think ownership can be spoken of with reference to one parent. It needs to be both parents or there is no ownership. The embryos are just as much the man’s as they are the woman’s. The only conclusion I can draw from this fact is that both parents must be in mutual agreement on what will be done with the embryos.
The way I think of it is this: Suppose there were no embryos frozen. When the man and woman have sex, they are both agreeing to the act. Both know there is a chance (even if unwanted) that pregnancy will occur. Because this is known and both engage in the act, consent has been granted to use their sperm or egg with the other person. (again, even if its not wanted) Now suppose the couple doesn’t have a baby and eventually separate. A month later the woman becomes infertile with every other man in the world. It seems to me, that the embryo situation would be the same as this woman forcing the man to give her his sperm so she can have a child. The man does not consent to giving her his sperm and that is his choice. She cannot force him. The only difference is that in the frozen embryo situation, he has given his sperm a long time ago. At that time he consented, however he no longer consents to giving this woman his sperm. Therefore, if she has not used the sperm (impregnating her with the embryo) before he declines consent, she has no right whatsoever to use the embryo. (which is made of his sperm) She couldn’t have had those embryos without the man’s sperm and he has since declined his consent to using that sperm. It doesn’t matter that the sperm and egg are already combined into an embryo. The fact is, he doesn’t consent to his sperm being used with that woman’s egg to form a child. He may have before, but he no longer does. She cannot use the embryo just as she cannot take his sperm. I fail to see how the fact that the sperm and egg are already combined into an embryo somehow makes it ok for her to use that embryo when the man does not give consent. The man doesn’t want a child with that woman and that is his right.
I should also say, if she can do what she wants with the embryos, so can he. What if he chooses to have them destroyed or given to another person? Who’s wishes do we follow? It isn’t a single persons choice, rather a consenting choice.
Exactly what Im trying to say… Just much more to the point. But I should also add that even if the couple didn’t legally decide that the decision of what to do with the embryos should be a joint one, it still is. Thats the only way that makes sense. The man doesn’t want a child with that woman (or in general) and is being forced into it. The child support also shows how unfair and unethical this would be to the man. If you want to use the embryos, you’d need the consent from both partners. I still fail to see a dilemma here…
Rapt0rzzz, I’m curious why you dismiss the possibility that this case could enforce the case of a man who wants a woman to abort his child. Perhaps only in certain situations:
Lets say that a man and a woman, before having protected sex, have agreed that if the contraceptive failed, they would get an abortion. The contraceptive fails, but the woman changes her mind and decided she wants to keep the child.
Does a man who never consented to having his sperm used to create a child have no right to force the woman to keep her word? Isn’t it an oral contract when she says she will seek an abortion? What’s the difference? This seems to be saying that once the sperm enters the woman, she has full ownership of it to use it how she wants, and the man has no right to enforce a previous agreement.
Then the woman is breaking her promise which is also wrong. The point is, in the abortion case, the child is in the woman. She did agree to get an abortion so I suppose she should in order to keep her word. However, in the frozen embryo situation there need not be any sort of verbal or legal contract made. It simply makes sense that if two people each equally contribute to something, they must make a join decision on what to do with it. Neither the man nor the woman has any greater say as to the frozen embryos. If the man wont consent, the woman cant use them. Period. The only reason pregnancy is different is that the child is in the woman’s body. If the woman and man were together, had the embryos frozen, had one implanted, then broke up, the man could not force her to have an abortion. However, if they are not together and the woman wants to use the embryos, she must have consent from the man. He must consent for her to use something he helped create.
When the man and woman have sex and agree to get an abortion if conception happens, they are still both consenting. They both know their is a chance of conception. They agree to have an abortion if it does happen, and in that case the woman should stay true to her word. However, if she doesnt, the man cant say anything because the baby is in the woman’s body. It should be noted that if, when having children, the baby grew outside the woman (you have sex as normal, but somehow instead of the woman being pregnant, its in some other place) the man would then have a say. However, both would have to agree to an abortion. If one said yes and one said no, an abortion could not be performed and the embryo would have to be let alone. (This of course would result into it growing and living, thus favoring one of the parents. This wasnt the choice of anyone however)
If someone stole a diamond, and implanted it in some part of their body, is it truly wrong to force them to remove it? They have no right to keep it in their body, so why does it matter that that’s where it is?
But the diamond is stolen… It was never theirs to keep in the first place. With conception outside of the woman’s body, both man and woman would have equal say because they both contributed to it. However, conception occurs in the body of the woman, thus giving her the right to make the decision. The child isn’t stolen.
