Frozen embryos left over after a breakup - who decides their fate?

http://www.boston.com/entertainment...bryo-debate/xVhtl9XMiCmsTk7l46tyUN/story.html

Actress Sofia Vergara was engaged to Nick Loeb, and they used a fertility clinic to produce frozen embryos to be implanted into a surrogate. After the relationship dissolved, the man still wanted the embryos to be brought to term, while the woman does not. This question is distinct from the usual abortion debate in that it's not the woman's body that would be used against her consent, but rather her DNA. It's sort of like when the guy doesn't want the woman to have his baby, but in that case the woman is deciding what to do with her body, while this sort of case doesn't have that complication. Sounds like they do have a contract that suggests both parties must consent, but outside of contracts, how do you think it should work? I would imagine pro-lifers would want them to implant the embryos, though they would be against the process that created them. But as a pro-choice person, I'm not completely sure. I don't feel like it would be fair to compel her to be a legal parent, though we do that to men, but I also think he should be able to have the kids without her via surrogate. Maybe she could have the choice of legal parenthood versus not, but not be allowed to tell him he can't. Or would that violate her right to control how her DNA is used...?

 

There's no perfect answer (as is so often the case in general when relationships break up) but I think the principle of unless they both agree the embryos can't be used has to apply.

Note that this is a very different question to one of abortion because that also involves the person who is pregnant in addition to the general questions of parenthood.

 

They belong to both donors equally. Neither donor can use the embryos without the consent of the other, which is the right thing to do.

 

They signed a contract, end of discussion.

 

Not really. The contract is in dispute, and even if it weren't I was only using the story as a launching point for an ethical discussion.

I find it interesting that people think both should agree. Even if embryos are just things or only potential persons, that can mean a lot to a potential parent who, particularly if it were the woman in her 40s, may not otherwise be able to have a child biologically or financially afford more ivf. I think only one person needs to want it, and if the other disagrees they can be released from parental rights and duties (assuming surrogate if it's the man who wants them).

 

My take is this.

Fertilized frozen embryo's can be used after a marriage ends with the father/mother's consent. If they do not give it, they cannot be held legally or financially responsible for anything and everything related to the pregnancy. That may be the way it works already, I'm not very knowledgeable about the law in this type of situation.

 

That would be an unfortunate situation of course, but not one that justifies overruling another's rights.

I also think there would be practical difficulties. If one partner objects to the use of the embryos, they'd still have to agree to their release from "parental rights and duties" so it'd still require some kind of agreement between to two. Also, you can't complete separate a biological parent from their offspring - the child could still seek out the other parent later in life for example.

It's a messy situation with no easy answer but I feel the requirement for both to agree to any use of the embryos is the clearest from a legal and practical perspective.

 

As someone who at least believes in the personhood of the fetus (iffier about the embryo stage), I'd say that the right to life of the child supersedes any sort of DNA rights, or any rights to be less likely to have an emotional conversation later, but that I strongly approve of the process used to "Freeze" the embryo and implant it into a surrogate. Perhaps this should become more common, even.

 

I don't personally think this has anything to do with the frozen embryo, it is my opinion a contract dispute between the man and woman and surrounds property rights, if the frozen embryo is not owned by both then there is nothing to stop a clinic implanting any embryo into any person ie a person cannot be owned by another, the fact that the courts see the embryo as the property of the two stops this happening, whether pro-lifers agree that the embryo is property or not that is the reality as it stands now .. should laws be changed to encompass the person at conception ideology then this becomes yet another grey area for if you cannot own a person and a fertilized ovum, embryo etc is legally a person then the man and woman can claim no legal rights over the frozen embryo, it basically becomes a ward of the state and it would therefore fall to the state to decide what should be done in the best interests of the "child" .. anyway I am stepping a little off topic .. so back to the OP, in this case I would assume that one or the other could cancel the contract, and of they so wish give sole ownership to the other person .. this I would assume would mean that they would have no responsibility what so ever to any off spring that may occur and this should also mean future protection from that off spring being able to locate them. If one does not want to allow the other to use the embryos in the future then it would be up to the courts to decide who has the greater right to the embryos and decided their future.

 

My understanding of the contract from TV is that both parties have to agree to do anything before anything can be done with the embryos, so unless they agree, the embryos stay frozen.

If there was a biological reason that Loeb was no longer fertile, I could understand the court fight, and he might actually have a fighting chance, but he's not stated that's the case, so this looks to me like he is either trying to get publicity or is trying to troll his ex girlfriend. So he's the problem here. Otherwise, no normal guy would want to have children by a woman he's no longer involved with. He can always get some other girl pregnant if that's what this was all about.

 

I am actually in agreement with you and this is an argument I had not thought of .. now as this is an abortion forum, how do you think courts would find should the person at conception ideology become law, as we know no person can own another person and as such the embryo would be a person under the law so neither the man or the woman could have any claim on it.

Actually this leads to me to wonder how parents of born children can lay claim to them .. how can taking a child be a crime when in reality nothing that the man or woman own has been taken?

 

I've no idea what "conception ideology" is, but if you are trying to fit this issue into some sort of left/choice continuum, I'm not sure it neatly applies. Not having slavery has nothing to do with someone's baby, and yes, I'm using the possessive.

 

It is person at conception ideology, the idea that from the moment of conception (fertilization) there is a person deserving of the same rights as any other "born" person, and no I am not trying to fit this into a left/choice continuum, I am asking the question that if such ideology were to become law then as a person the embryo cannot be owned by anyone, so how would the courts determine an outcome .. in fact would there not have to be legal representation for the embryo as it would be entitled to the equal protection of the law just as any other person would be.

does being the biological parents of a child mean they are the owners of that child, Rand Paul seems to think so, in an interview concerning immunization he stated that "parents own children", and yet this seems totally at odds to the pro-life idea that each of the unborn are individual, separate persons who should have the same rights as any other "born" person.

 

I don't know how such an ideology, if made law (about zero chance I think) would change anything regarding IVF and stored embryos. Currently, in any state of the union, regardless of abortion laws, embryos don't seem to be covered. If the couple decided to dispose of their embryos, they could do it. Otherwise, I don't see your embryos=slavery connection. Is a woman carrying a child at 7 months the slave master of the child she is carrying? It's the type of question that doesn't make any sense in terms humans and families. Are you really a bot or AI who,like Data, is trying to get a sense of what it means to be human?

If you really don't understand what it means to a couple for a child to be "theirs" other than in terms of human slavery you can understand perhaps why I doubt you may be human.

 

If we allow the woman to control how her reproductive cells are used, we also have to give the man control over how his genetic material is used, and that would basically mean forced abortion.

The woman lost her reproductive rights once those eggs left her body and were combined with the man's sperm.

Or do you think the man can come in and tell the woman she is no longer allowed to gestate his embryo? (the embryo is half his)

Do you believe that either parent has veto power when the embryo is outside of the uterus, but once the embryo is inside the uterus it belongs 100% to the woman who's uterus it is in?

And why should the veto power work like that? What if there's a surrogate ready and willing? Shouldn't one of the biological parents be able to veto the choice of killing the embryo? In other words, both parents should have to agree to not implant. It's not the woman's body here, so she has no more choice over the matter than the father. As long as the surrogate says yes.

But I will make it more complex. What if there are two surrogates, and the parents cannot agree which one to implant in?
Each parent is willing to pay the money for the surrogate they want.

 

I disagree. Maybe he wants to be a dad but does not want to be in an 18 year relationship with "some other girl" that comes with having a child with them.

 

Whenever you 'release' one party from parental obligations, you had better figure out who can pay his half of the tab. I stress the word 'can'. Not much point in thrusting that duty on the other party as though the mere thrusting of a legal duty is some guarantee.

My best guess is that you have compromised the child's economic stability and future dramatically and that is one party who's consent you cannot acquire. I think either he and single parent will live a lot poorer, or the state becomes the source of income you just gave away. You can't be fair and equitable here, and still be fair and equitable to the kid when he needs money to join Little League, to buy a band uniform or get a bike that actually fits a 15 year old butt and the money ISNT THERE!. We won't approach the topic of help with college, because kids with only one involved and financially responsible parent, aren't as likely to be going anyway.

If these decisions are being made with the kid as the highest priority, why does everyone think someone else has the moral right to 'release' a parent, and leave the kid with half a set of incomes when it is convenient for the one being 'released', a judge who wants to be 'fair, the other parent who does not want to share custody and decision-making, or another third party with a ethical hypothetical to explore?

 

That depends very much on whether the child exists yet. We can't just go killing children just because they might grow up poor. I know we are talking about an embryo here but what if it was a fetus?

 

I just want to point out here that there are different stages of embryonic development. The most advanced stage that can survive freezing is only 100-120 cells, which is really more of a blastocyst. It does not resemble a human being at all (at least it's not shaped like one).

But suppose, just hypothetically for the sake of argument here, that it was possible for a 5 week old embryo to temporarily survive outside of the uterus. That's the more advanced type of embryo that actually has some structure (beginning to take humanoid shape).

 

hmm, so you have to resort to silly little 'digs' at what is a perfectly logical question.

I know very well how the parent, child relationship works, all I am asking is if that ideology became law how or if it would have any effect on the current standings, the reason, as you so rightly state, that it is not an issue is simply because embryos etc are NOT legally considered anything other than the property of the "parents" at the moment. My question asks how the person at conception ideology could or would change that, so do you have an answer or will you just carry on making comments basically saying you don't know?

 

For once you are actually asking and stating things that make sense, hence why I asked the question - how does person at conception, if made into law, effect IVF and embryo freezing.

IVF for one would not be able to dispose of all the fertilized ova that are not used, they would HAVE to keep them until such time they could be used, same goes for frozen embryos .. after if pro-lifers are going to be consistent then those ova's and embryos are 'people' after all.

So Anders, perhaps you can address the question.

 

and here in lies the dilemma, either the state takes over responsibility (as it does in other cases) or there is going to be a very big decline in the IVF business or the 'parents' are going to be held financially responsible for the care of EVERY fertilized ovum they produce and is frozen until such time that ova can continue it's life.

This is just another example of how pro-lifers have not considered the full implications of their 'person at conception' ideology.

 

Well he's not going to have a relationship with Sofia Vegara. If he really wants to be a dad, but doesn't want a mom (?) he can do what gay dad's do and hire a surrogate and have a child with some other genetic mother. It doesn't have to be with a famous TV star.

 

I already said I had never heard of "conception ideology" before, so everything I know about it is what you've posted on this thread. So do I know if a person who has an unfamiliar ideology might decide babies are slaves? I don't know. It just sounds as if your hypothetical is fantastical that it doesn't seem to lend itself to an actual reasonable answer. The idea that children are slaves doesn't seem to be a modern Western concept so I don't know who this would apply to.

 

I find it hard to believe that you have not heard of this ideology it has been main news for quite some time, here perhaps this will help - https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=person+at+conception