Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    
    	Great, the woman has again all the say and the man won't
    	even have a choice about something that will affect him
    	for the next 18 years.

    	How can anyone say this man should be held responsible
    	to support this child? I mean he has made it clear he
    	doesn't want it before she even becomes pregnant. Why
    	should he be held to support it then?  It seems the same
    	as any woman walking up to any man saying "I want to have
    	your baby and you will pay for it". Is it coming to this,
    	where a woman will be able to pick any man and be able to
    	force him into being a father and supporting it?
    

    
    re -1
    
         It is my understanding that this woman did not want nor
         did she expect the father to pay child support.  She
         wanted to take full financial and emotional responsibility
         for the children if she had them.  Unfortunately, the
         laws of most states require support payments.  Until the
         states change thier laws to reflect the differences
         in "family" matters things will pretty much stay the same.
    
         I beleive the reason he did not want to have the children
         was not because he did not want to have to pay support,
         but that he did not want to have a child of his living
         on this earth unless he was going to be an active parent
         which he was not willing to do in this case.
    
         "Great, the woman has again all the say and the man won't
         even have a choice about something that will effect him
         for the next 18 years."  This should be rewritten as
    
          Great, the COURT has again all the say....

    From my point of view if there are *embryos* HE became the father
    when the eggs were fertilized.
    
    And I haven't heard it claimed he was *forced* to do it.
    

    How were they fertilized? In the womb or test tube? 
    
    I get a helpless feeling that men in general are condemned at the
    moment of conception to having total responcibility for the event
    and none for the child. Its like a heads I win tails You lose bet
    in that there is a double standard but well noted in advance.
    I can't help but wondering if this is part of the unexplained trapped 
    feeling I get that leads to me ending many of my relationships in
    suicide fashion( I say,do all the known wrong things).
    
    -j
                               

    The sword is double edged.
    
    The finding in this case declares that the embryos are human life. This
    in turn would render Roe vs. Wade moot. Roe says that the fetus/embryo
    is not life until the third trimester. In essence, this ruling says
    that abortion is murder!!!!!! Since I'm pro-life, I applaude the
    decision. As far as the right of the father, I understand his dilema,
    but, he made the concious decision to take part in IVF and the
    possibility of death or divorce was brought up at the time of the
    procedure. The problem is that when the eggs were fertilized, they were
    a happily married couple.
    
    Junior Davis is going to appeal the decision to the Tennessee State
    Appellate Court. It will be appealed to the Tennessee State Supreme
    Court in 1990 and the United States Supreme Court in 1991. This will be
    the Abortion and Father's Rights test case. 
    
    If the ruling is reversed by the US Supreme Court, Fathers will be able
    to prevent abortions. If it's upheld, abortion will be illegal. 
    
    Ken

    
    RE 4
    
    "How were they fertilized?"  Just curious, but what difference does
    it make how they were fertilized?
    
    Please explain "having total responsibility for the event and none
    for the child."  Both the mother and the father are totally responsible
    for the child until the courts get into the picture and rule otherwise.
    It takes two to produce an embryo.  If neither person wanted the
    responsibility for the future product of the embryo then that person
    should have taken the responsibility for protecting themselves.
    I realize that this case is different, but the result is still that
    there are embryos which were produced by both persons involved with
    consent from both persons involved.
    
    RE 5
    
    A judge does not have the medical or scientific knowledge
    (unless he is an MD) to determine when life begins.  This 
    judge was using his opinion to rule on this case, not scientific
    fact because the fact has not yet been decided by the persons
    most qualified to determine the answer.  Either way it is just
    one more log to add to the abortion fire.
    
    re "Fathers will be able to prevent abortions."  I feel that the
    only way this will work is if there is a jail term for the 
    mothers who do not inform the fathers that they are pregnant.
    This is highly unrealistic.  There was recently a case in Canada
    and the woman was allowed to have the abortion.  I do beleive that
    men should have input into the decision to have an abortion, but
    the woman is ultimately the one who is going to make the decision
    either way.  It may not be fair and it may not be just in men's
    eyes, but that is the way it is.  Even if abortion were to be
    made illegal, it will not put an end to it.
    
    If men really want to get thier fair share in the lives of
    thier children, they must take action against the courts.
    The women of this world are not going to force any changes
    because they are in a good position in the courts and lets
    face it most people will not change things that are in thier
    best interest.  Unfortunatley, the original intent to do
    what is best for the children is not being done.  I know of
    many men who were screwed over by the courts, and they
    try to work with the system to get things chaged but that isnt
    working.  But the changes will not come unless they are forced!
    

    
    I read in the Boston Globe that standard practice for IVF is
    to have the couples sign a waver regarding disposition of the
    fetus if they divorce or separate. Unfortunately, the clinic
    forgot to ask them to sign the waver.
    
    (Does Roe/Wade actually state when life begins, or does it only 
    say that the state is allowed to regulate abortions?)

    
    
    Re -1
    
    Roe v Wade did not allow abortions in the third trimester which
    was when it was determined the fetus was viable and could
    survive outside of the womb.  It now states that the individual
    states have the right to determine when the fetus is viable.

>         "Great, the woman has again all the say and the man won't
>         even have a choice about something that will effect him
>         for the next 18 years."  This should be rewritten as
>    
>          Great, the COURT has again all the say....

 No. It should be written, the court has decided that the woman has all the say.

 The Doctah

    If, as the judge said, life begins at conception;
                                                     
    and if the woman keeps these fertilized eggs frozen for several years
    without implanting them;                        
                            
    then when the eggs reach the age of 21 they will be eligible to vote. 

Some interesting implications if the judge's ruling stands:

1. Mary Sue Davis will be legally obligated to attempt to bear and
   give birth to *all seven* embryos. After all, according to the
   judge's ruling, all seven are living human beings; thus, if Mary
   Sue does anything that causes any of them not to live, she's a
   murderer. (From what I've heard and read, it's her intention
   to maybe have a child or two - I haven't heard that she plans
   to have all seven. Does she?)

2. All of the signed agreements about disposing of embryos in the
   event of divorce or death will become null and void. Any clinic
   that disposes of an embryo is subject to murder charges. The legal,
   financial, and emotional ramifications for clinics and their
   clients (those who have already gone through IVF and have embryos)
   are mind-boggling.

Incidentally, I think it was a bad ruling.

    I can't believe they decided this in favor of allowing her to implant
    the embryos.  He should have an equal say in this matter because her
    body has not gotten involved yet.  This decision is such a setback,
    both for prochoice and for father's rights.
    	Linda

>    I can't believe they decided this in favor of allowing her to implant
>    the embryos.  He should have an equal say in this matter because her
>    body has not gotten involved yet.  This decision is such a setback,
>    both for prochoice and for father's rights.

Maybe the judicial opinions on "when life starts" is a setback, but I
don't consider the whole decision to be a setback.  I see it as an
upholding of a contract.  The man agreed to begin this process of
having children (without them adding a "what if we divorce" clause);
the woman says that the divorce does not nullify his agreement to the
original contract.  I side with the woman. 

The only thing I would object to would be for the man to be forced 
to pay child support.  To me, the child is clearly the woman's and not 
the man's (from a legal standpoint, not a biological one).  I don't 
think that biological parenthood should, under the law, automatically 
lead to "legal" parenthood.

To "explain" my opinions logically would be difficult.  This "feels" 
just to me.

I also think that there is a huge grey area in the law that needs to 
be addressed; perhaps we are looking at a redefinition of "parent" or 
more fighting about "when life begins."  I dunno...

I also reserve the right to chance my mind.      :-)

						--Gerry

    I thought (reply .7) that there was not a written contract which is why
    this came to court.  But even if there was one, I think he should have
    had the chance to alter it since their marital situation changed.
    He would have been better off trying to get custody by claiming he
    would hire a surrogate mother to implant them in.
    	Linda

     Her body has not been involved yet??  Good heavens!  Think about
    the process of IVF.  She has had numerous exams, painful surgery, 
    (think of what it feels like to have needles stuck in *your* gonad!), 
    maybe even more than once before enough eggs were retrieved, and he has
    had soft lights and soft porn.
    
    >I think he should have had the chance to alter it since their marital
    >situation changed.
    
    If the fertilization were natural instead of IVF, and there now exists
    a living child instead of 7 embryos, and their marital situation
    "changed", do you still think a parent should have the chance to alter 
    his/her original decision to have a child?  I sure don't think so.
    I believe he has the right to back out but not merely because his
    situation has changed, but rather because technology "stopped the
    presses".
    
    To my mind, the question of when life begins is meaningless.  Life
    began a long, long time ago.  Women's bodies merely continue it.
    Women are not "dead" before they are pregnant.  Life exists in an
    empty womb.  There is no natural life/non-life/life cycle.  Once
    life stops, it doesn't start again, naturally.
    
    "Separate" life begins when nature says it's ready to. Technology and 
    competetive lawyers have combined to confuse the issue and downplay
    the dictates of nature, which I believe are absolute and should be con-
    sidered so.  Removing and freezing an embryo could be considered
    "murder", (the embryo would be considered dead), if we didn't have the 
    technology to "re-animate" it.  So is it because we *do* have the 
    technology that we are now allowed the luxury of calling the embryos 
    "life", something nature would *never* allow?
    
    I feel we as a society are clearly loosing sight of the very idea of 
    "life" itself.  Only technology has allowed embryos outside the womb to
    be "life", therefore, arguments of nature, (disposing is murder, etc),
    are out of place when discussing this very "un"-natural situation.
    
    The legal system does not really want common definitions and standardiz- 
    ation of situations because lawyers make their living on "interpretation".  
    Therefore, the issues are intentionally referred to as "complex" and
    as "grey areas"  where they needn't be at all.  Nature gave this woman
    no kids.  Technology alone put her in this bind and now nature is
    being dredged up by the courts, (via one of the lawyers), as some sort
    of absolute reasoning to use in favor of one's client.  
    
    If we go the nature route, the embryos should be destroyed since
    nature had no intention of giving this woman fertilized eggs with this
    man nor of supporting embryos outside the womb. If we go the
    technology route, the eggs could still be destroyed since only
    technology and not any concept of God or murder or anything else
    *makes* them "life" outside the womb.
    
    Should he be forced to pay?  Absolutely not.  He changed his mind
    and technology gave him the option nature wouldn't have.  Should
    she, or someone, be forced to gestate the embryos?  Absolutely not,
    same reason.  Let's fish or cut bait.  Let's either declare the technology
    itself too much of an intervention rather than celebrating the
    technology and damning the humans who use it, or let's embrace the
    technology and use it to our best advantage, (in this case, opportunity
    to back out), rather than damning the humans.
    

Re: .16

Sandy, that's one of the most eloquent and thought-provoking statements I've
seen on this issue ever.  Thanks for entering it.  I am particularly
intrigued by your observation on the "when life begins" question.  If only
the judicial system saw things the same way...

			Steve

>    To my mind, the question of when life begins is meaningless.  Life
>    began a long, long time ago.  Women's bodies merely continue it.
>    Women are not "dead" before they are pregnant.  Life exists in an
>    empty womb.  There is no natural life/non-life/life cycle.  Once
>    life stops, it doesn't start again, naturally.

Wow!  Every once in a while someone comes along and shines a light where
before there was darkness.  What a wonderful point.  I agree with .17,
thanks for writing.

    A fascinating note, Sandy, and one that I think raises some 
    of the critical issues that people will have to deal with
    over the next several decades.  Part of your questioning rests
    on the idea that technology is confusing issues and/or allowing
    humans to re-define what is natural.  I find much to agree with
    in that thinking and yet there's another thought that also 
    troubles me.  At the risk of openning this into too broad
    a philosophical discussion, it seems to me that one of the 
    unknowns is "the nature of human beings".  Apparently we are,
    by our very natures, tool users; because of our capacity to
    reason, it's "natural" for us to create technological devices.
    From this viewpoint, technological advance is a hallmark of
    our natural selves.
    
    Steve

re: Ger

>I see it as an
>upholding of a contract.  The man agreed to begin this process of
>having children (without them adding a "what if we divorce" clause);
>the woman says that the divorce does not nullify his agreement to the
>original contract. 

 If this is the case, would you deny a pregnant, married woman the right to
an abortion if she decided to get a divorce? After all, she consented to having 
a child, now she wants to change her mind. Seems to me a symmetry of rights is 
called for. If she can change her mind while the child is developing, why is
it wrong for a man to change his mind post fertilization but pre-development
(to use a term for a difficult to describe situation)?

re: Sandy

>    "Separate" life begins when nature says it's ready to. Technology and 
>    competetive lawyers have combined to confuse the issue and downplay
>    the dictates of nature, which I believe are absolute and should be con-
>    sidered so.

 If you believe that the dictates of nature are absolute, what role do you
assign to medicine in general? One would assume that you would allow nature
to takes its course- no matter what. While this sounds unreasonable to me,
you may, in fact, believe in it. Would you please elaborate?

 In my opinion, saying that the dictates of nature are absolute is a false
statement (though it does depend on what you consider to be natural, as Steve
touched upon). Man does things now that were inconceivable a few centuries
ago. So to me, nature is not absolute.

 As for the concept that nature decides when separate life begins, again, this
is debatable. If you are 8.5 months along in your pregnancy, and you are in
a car accident (mortally wounded, though still alive). Your last words before
lapsing into unconsciousness are "Save my baby." The doctor does a c-section,
and a beautiful, healthy baby is produced. Certainly nature did not prevail
in this scenario. Nature is harsh. We intervene in the "natural order of things"
every time we obtain medical treatment.

 Good conclusions, though. The guy should have the choice. If the mother
didn't want the embryos and the father did, but the mother didn't want her
eggs used, I'd want her to have the choice, too. The ruling was lousy,
and made a bad situation worse.

 The Doctah

>>I see it as an
>>upholding of a contract.  The man agreed to begin this process of
>>having children (without them adding a "what if we divorce" clause);
>>the woman says that the divorce does not nullify his agreement to the
>>original contract. 
>
> If this is the case, would you deny a pregnant, married woman the right to
>an abortion if she decided to get a divorce? After all, she consented to having 
>a child, now she wants to change her mind. Seems to me a symmetry of rights is 
>called for. If she can change her mind while the child is developing, why is
>it wrong for a man to change his mind post fertilization but pre-development
>(to use a term for a difficult to describe situation)?

As I said in my original note, logic isn't going to help me a lot in 
this, but I'll give it a shot at describing what feels "right" to me.

The two situations are different to me.  The case of the embryos 
involves a technology that introduces a new dynamic into having 
children, as Sandy has already pointed out.  Sandy suggested that we 
either embrace the new technology or deny its use altogether.  What I 
am advocating is the embracing of that technology and the legal 
treatment of the embryos as "objects" that are "owned" by the man and 
woman and can be used according to a verbal or written contract drawn 
up by the parties involved.  (This includes the man using the embryos 
to implant in a surrogate, but the way; they're his "objects," too.)

The basis for both of my judgments is that I believe that the state
should not be able to force a woman into using her body for nine
months giving birth to a baby if she doesn't want to (trimester laws
taken into consideration).  (That would be indentured servitude in my
mind.)  The flip side of the coin is that the state should not be able
to force a woman to have an abortion if she doesn't want to. 

My belief is that contracts and laws must stop at the point at which
the woman's body (in this case) becomes involved; to do anything else
would be the most extreme violation of privacy (the right of a person
to do what they want with their own body).  The rights of the fetus
(in the first two trimesters) do not supersede the rights of the
mother (to me); the mother has earned her rights by being able to
sustain her own existence in minimal ways whereas a fetus can't do
that in the first two trimesters.  It's a hard*ss way of looking at
it, and my "facts" aren't absolute, but it is the fairest conclusion
that I have been able to come up with. 

From that basic belief of mine, the "embryo" situation involves a
willing pregnancy and a fulfilling of a contract that does not involve
the invasion or indenturing of another person's body (no one forced
the man to indenture his body to create the embryos; that was a deed
done, at that time, with his consent). The second situation involves
the indenturing of another person's body ("you _must_ abort"), and is
not legally binding (in my mind) in either contract or law.  

I would feel the same way if the mother wanted to carry a baby to term
after a divorce and the father didn't want her to.  After the embryo 
gets into the woman's body, it's her call for the first two 
trimesters because her actions do not involve another human being who 
can basically sustain his/her own life (my requirement for being given 
"rights").

The interesting thing to me is that the denial of the woman to implant 
the embryo and the denial of the woman to abort is similar in the 
dynamic that the will of the father (backed by the state) would be 
eliminating the choice of a woman as to what she can do with her body. 
The heart of the matter for me is that many men refuse to give up 
all control post conception and pre-third-trimester, which, since it 
involves intimate and intense work by a woman's body, is what I think 
we absolutely have to do: back off.

"Are the embryos hers to do with what she wants?  Aren't they just as 
much the man's?"  Good questions.  I don't have the answers.  Here, I
tip my hat to Sandy, and I advocate that we embrace the technology,
make those decisions, and put them into law.  Until we do make those
decisions, we can only go by the laws that we already have.  And, in
my opinion, under the verbal/written contract laws that we do have,
that woman should be able to use her 3.5 embryos in any way she sees
fit, including implanting or disposing. 

That's how I call it.

Feel free to disagree.  I feel free to change my mind as more and more 
becomes known about this kind of child birthing method.  I change my 
mind often.  This is where I'm at right now.

							--Ger

Re: .20

Mark, it seems that what you read into Sandy's note differs dramatically
from what I read.  Perhaps she will elaborate, but I did not sense that
she advocated "letting nature take its course" in all circumstances.  Rather
I saw her position technology as part of what we are all about.

			Steve

WAHOO::LEVESQUE

>If you believe that the dictates of nature are absolute, what role do you
>assign to medicine in general? 
>One would assume that you would allow nature to takes its course- no matter 
>what. 

I can understand where you might think that but wrong assumption.  I use
"absolute" not to mean "must prevail" but rather, "it exists, no matter
what".  Put in computer terms, I liken the natural world to microcode and 
technology to merely a layered product.  It specializes, it improves on, but 
it is a secondary role - a supporting role - a changeable role - and
cannot ever replace the starring one.

We as a society are in danger, (because of technology and competetive law-
yers), of forgetting which is the bottom line and which is the volatile,
tenuous, (often wonderful as in the case of saved lives), application we 
are currently running.

We seem to be doing obeisance to our technology.  We are calling frozen
embryos "life" for the first time in human history.  And only technology allows
us to do that.  No problem with that.  But the problem begins when we forget
that is *IS* merely technology that is allowing us to call frozen embryos life.
Nature does not.  We have to keep that in mind when we conclude that frozen
embryos *must* be implanted or they *must* be maintained or whatever.  Ac-
cording to the natural world from which life came, we blew it when they were 
removed from a woman, regardless of the circumstances or the fact that we
can now re-animate them. 

And I mean "blew it" in terms of what "nature" or "God", (or whatever
other reason is used for keeping these things around), intended.  Our tech-
nology has allowed us to recover from such a breech of nature - such an insult
to the natural world, so I don't see how we can now invoke nature's, (or
God's), name as a reason for doing something else *this* late in the game.  
"God" bowed out of this a long time ago!  Technology is running things
now.  Technology can dispose of these eggs just as it can gestate them.  
Nature cannot.  So we must choose in the beginning - in the decision to
develop the technology and in every decision we make to use it - rather
than switching the rules in the middle of the game; using technology to
create step 1 and invoking "God's" name to either proceed to or to prevent,
step 2.

In this case, I believe the couple, the doctors and any lawyers involved
at the time, chose technology over nature.  No problem with that.  But
now, because of dissention, someone has found a lawyer who will throw around 
a lot of lofty ideas about nature over technology, about "God", which was 
abandoned early on, as evidence by the very situation at hand!  And a judge
- an allegedly wise person - bought this flim-flam!  Is he merely stupid or
is he just emotional?  Is either case good?

>As for the concept that nature decides when separate life begins, again, this
>is debatable. If you are 8.5 months along in your pregnancy, and you are in
>a car accident (mortally wounded, though still alive). Your last words before
>lapsing into unconsciousness are "Save my baby." The doctor does a c-section,
>and a beautiful, healthy baby is produced. Certainly nature did not prevail
>in this scenario. Nature is harsh. We intervene in the "natural order of 
>things" >every time we obtain medical treatment.

But this is not "nature" deciding, this is technology deciding.  Nature may 
well have decided that the foetus die with the mother.

You're thinking I'm saying nature must prevail in every situation and I'm
not.  Technology is wonderful!  I have nothing against it!  

I worry, tho, that we as a society don't see it for what it is - that our 
apparent "deification" of technology, and our attempts to "naturalize" the 
results, are leading us far astray.

According to nature and "God", the eggs are *already* dead.  The unpregnant 
woman *is* "life".  These things are absolute and our technology, to which we
owe NO defense of our moral actions, is not.
    
                                  
    

re: Sandy-

 I must disagree on one point. I don't think the embryos are "dead." I don't
think that man has yet mastered the ability to create humans from chemicals.
I believe that they are indeed alive, yet suspended from nature. Now whether
they constitute human life, that is another thing alotogether- and even with
my Catholic upbringing, I'd be hardpressed to call the embryos humans.

 I agree that the judge bought some serious flim-flam. If it weren't such a 
weighty decision, it's almost be humorous. It belongs on SNL.

 I think that the man and the woman are given a remarkable symmetry of rights
through the IVF and cryogenic technology. Many people consider it outrageous 
that a woman be forced to have a baby she doesn't want. And yet some of these
same people think this man should have children he doesn't want. Since the 
woman is not pregnant, I can see no compelling reason to force this man to have
children against his will. 

 re: Ger

>The basis for both of my judgments is that I believe that the state
>should not be able to force a woman into using her body for nine
>months giving birth to a baby if she doesn't want to 

 I think the same should go for the man in this instance.

>From that basic belief of mine, the "embryo" situation involves a
>willing pregnancy and a fulfilling of a contract that does not involve
>the invasion or indenturing of another person's body (

 I contend that the part of the man's body that was used to make the embryos
should remain under his control since it is not in the woman's body.

>The interesting thing to me is that the denial of the woman to implant 
>the embryo and the denial of the woman to abort is similar in the 
>dynamic that the will of the father (backed by the state) would be 
>eliminating the choice of a woman as to what she can do with her body. 

 In the same vein, allowing the woman to implant denies the father the exact 
same rights. No one is preventing the woman from having additional IVF
procedures performed with a willing participant. So she still has the choice
over what she can do with her body, just not with certain embryos.

>And, in
>my opinion, under the verbal/written contract laws that we do have,
>that woman should be able to use her 3.5 embryos in any way she sees
>fit, including implanting or disposing. 

 I was under the impression that the woman had been awarded the entire set of
seven embryos.

 Actually, I think a reasonably competant lawyer could prevent the woman from 
implanting under the very laws that you invoke. A change in the situation
may very well make the "verbal agreement" null and void.

 The Doctah

WAHOO::LEVESQUE
    

>I don't think the embryos are "dead." 

Some people do and some people don't.  But nature makes no provisions
for resurecting frozen embryos so for all intents and purposes, they 
are dead according to nature because we "killed" them when we froze them.

>I don't think the embryos are "dead." I don't think that man has yet 
>mastered the ability to create humans from chemicals.

This is a good example of what I mean by our technology allowing us to
define what these embryos are.  If we ever *do* master the ability to create 
humans from chemicals, then would you consider the embryos "dead"? 

It is only our technology that can ressurect them so only our technology,
and not nature, makes them "life".  You seem to want to ride the fence,
(as many people do, no problem with that), and refer to them as "sus-
pended" or something like that.  That's because technology, and *only*
technology allows you the luxury of believing in the possibility of humans 
from these things.

>Many people consider it outrageous that a woman be forced to have a baby 
>she doesn't want. And yet some of these same people think this man should 
>have children he doesn't want. 

That's their problem.  Many people are hypocritical, believing in only
what benefits them.  I naively expect judges to be above all this but
they are subject to the same hypocrisy.

>Since the woman is not pregnant, I can see no compelling reason to force 
>this man to have children against his will. 

"Have" or "support"?  He can "take back" his agreement to financial support, 
because the kid isn't here yet and technology gave him the time, but he can't 
take back his semen.  He helped make these things and he can't simply
"unmake" them.  He can destroy his, he shouldn't have to worry about hers.    

But I agree there is no reason at all to force these "things" into the natural 
world or regard them as products of it.  Louise Brown, (the first testube baby)
was not a creation of nature or "God" but of technology.  She lives on borrowed
(stolen?), time.  And while I think it's wonderful that technology can do 
this, we must realize that every person we "create" this way is more of a 
gift from us *to* nature and not a gift to us *from* it.  Our obligations in 
these cases are not to "God".  Stretching it further, if "God" is so pro-
life, it's time maybe She/He bowed to us for creating that which She/He
couldn't.

If we destroy those embryos, nothing has been lost since they are only
here through our own design.  If we gestate them into humans, we have
given to the world something over and above what nature intended - 
something *more*.  No one should be forced to "donate", (another "United
Way" arm-twisting! ;-)  ) by using the excuse that nature or "God" demands 
it.  

We are very egostistical about our technology to think "God" would sanction 
our creations as Her/His own.  If there is a "God", there must be a lot of 
cold shivers running through the heavens.  We can have our technology and our 
resultant humans, but to align them with nature is a misguided sense that we 
possess a "God-like" omnipotence and that's a bad mistake.  If we believe
in "God", we must also believe that there are reasons for barrenness.    

>Actually, I think a reasonably competant lawyer could prevent the woman from 
>implanting under the very laws that you invoke. 

Half of them are hers.  I'd like to be her lawyer in this instance but if 
she expects the guy to pay money for it, I'd like to be *his* lawyer!
    
                                                                     

>This is a good example of what I mean by our technology allowing us to
>define what these embryos are.  If we ever *do* master the ability to create 
>humans from chemicals, then would you consider the embryos "dead"? 

 Not those embryos. Those embryos are not dead, yet. If allowed to thaw
conventioanlly, they would die. But for now, they remain alive (albeit 
suspended).

 If man could pour chemicals into a petry dish and create the equivalent of
human beings, I would consider the chemicals dead until they became alive.
If that makes any sense. :-)

>"Have" or "support"?  He can "take back" his agreement to financial support, 
>because the kid isn't here yet and technology gave him the time, but he can't 
>take back his semen.  He helped make these things and he can't simply
>"unmake" them.  He can destroy his, he shouldn't have to worry about hers. 

 This is definitely new ground. No one has ever made children using an unwilling
person's genetic material before (on purpose). We must decide if it is 
acceptable for someone to use another person's genetic material against their
will or not. I don't think it's right.

>Louise Brown, (the first testube baby)
>was not a creation of nature or "God" but of technology.

 I don't believe that her embryo was ever frozen, so she was never "dead" in the
way you consider these embryos to be.

>Stretching it further, if "God" is so pro-
>life, it's time maybe She/He bowed to us for creating that which She/He
>couldn't.

 Without resorting to anything heavy, I'd like to suggest to you the possibility
that God chose not to create, rather than was unable to creata. It's a 
significant difference for many of us who believe that man is not now nor will
ever be more powerful than God.

>And while I think it's wonderful that technology can do 
>this, we must realize that every person we "create" this way is more of a 
>gift from us *to* nature and not a gift to us *from* it.  Our obligations in 
>these cases are not to "God".  Stretching it further, if "God" is so pro-
>life, it's time maybe She/He bowed to us for creating that which She/He
>couldn't.

>We can have our technology and our 
>resultant humans, but to align them with nature is a misguided sense that we 
>possess a "God-like" omnipotence and that's a bad mistake.  If we believe
>in "God", we must also believe that there are reasons for barrenness.    

 I sense incongruity between these two passages. Is God greater than man or
vice versa?

 The Doctah

>>From that basic belief of mine, the "embryo" situation involves a
>>willing pregnancy and a fulfilling of a contract that does not involve
>>the invasion or indenturing of another person's body (
>
> I contend that the part of the man's body that was used to make the embryos
>should remain under his control since it is not in the woman's body.

I addressed this issue, but you left it out of your reply.  I said that
the man willingly used his body to create the embryos.  He did this
willingly; no one forced him to use his body in this way. 

I also maintain that embryos are not "part of a man's body" just
because he provided a seed; nor is it part of a woman's body just
because she provided an egg.  An embryo is only part of someone's body
if it is attached to a womb (to date, this can only happen to a
woman).  Since they aren't doing the work and since they aren't
physically involved, I think that men should give up all "ownership"
of the embryo during the first two trimesters; it's the woman's choice
because she's doing the work. 

I don't agree with your statement "forcing him to have children,"
because, in my mind, since he had nothing to do with emplanting the
embryo or carrying the child, it's not "his."  I do not believe
that a "biological" father should always be a "legal" father. 

...but a lot of this stuff is just my opinion, not law.

I also think it would have been a very, very good idea to have had a 
divorce clause in a written contract regarding the embryos.  But 
hindsight is 20/20, right?

						--Gerry

>>Louise Brown, (the first testube baby)
>>was not a creation of nature or "God" but of technology.

Ummm, am I crazy, or does technology happen in nature?  Isn't 
technology part of nature?  I think it is.  It exists.  It's here.  It 
is part of the initimate connection of all people things.  Is god so 
impotent that she allows technology to exist without her consent?  I 
don't think so.

Rita Mae Brown once said, "There is no such thing as 'unnatural,' only 
'untried.'"  I think I agree with her.


							--Ger

    I am truely impressed... these last few replies have been discussions
    not Gender rights whining... I applaud you all...
    
    Pleas, by all means, continue...

>I addressed this issue, but you left it out of your reply.  I said that
>the man willingly used his body to create the embryos.  He did this
>willingly; no one forced him to use his body in this way. 

 I did address that issue. He donated his seed so they could attempt to have
children _together_. Since she has no intentions of staying with him, the
"contract" is no longer valid. The embryos should be retained in suspension
until the woman is no longer of child-bearing age, or until one or both of them
changes their mind.

>I also maintain that embryos are not "part of a man's body" just
>because he provided a seed; nor is it part of a woman's body just
>because she provided an egg.

 Well, then, why should the woman prevail in this struggle if it isn't
part of her body? If there's no connection between the woman and the embryos,
why couldn't a third party petition for the right to implant? I don't think
that argument holds water. I think that both the man and the woman have donated 
their genetic material and therefore have a marked interest in the outcome.

> I don't agree with your statement "forcing him to have children,"
>because, in my mind, since he had nothing to do with emplanting the
>embryo or carrying the child, it's not "his."

 It is his both biologically and legally. I recognize that you may not agree 
with society on this, but that's the way it is and must be addressed thusly.

>I do not believe
>that a "biological" father should always be a "legal" father.

 They aren't. However, the biological father is the legal father in cases of
paternity and corresponding support.

    re:  --Ger
    
    Technology is "natural"?  If you mean everything that exists is
    "natural", then ok.  I used natural to mean everything not human-created.
    
    If you further mean that everything that exists is "God sanctioned", 
    by virtue of God allowing it to exist, I dunno.  I'm not too into 
    God discussions but I can't imagine that everything that exists is 
    sanctioned.  Not to open another, (somewhat related), can of worms,
    but do you therefore believe abortion is "sanctioned" since God
    allows it to exist?  How about war?  Do you believe there is no real 
    evil in the world at all because God wouldn't allow it?  I am not
    suggesting that IVF is "evil", I'm challenging your idea that all
    that exists is "good" or "right" or "God-sanctioned" simply because
    it exists.

    
    	Can someone help here, I'm pretty sure the news report I
    	heard on this case reported that this part of the case
    	was only to settle the issue of ownership. I could have
    	sworn that the lawer for the woman said she might at a
    	later time petition the court for support, also that the
    	court itself left this door open.
    
    	G_B

>> I don't agree with your statement "forcing him to have children,"
>>because, in my mind, since he had nothing to do with emplanting the
>>embryo or carrying the child, it's not "his."
>
> It is his both biologically and legally. I recognize that you may not agree 
>with society on this, but that's the way it is and must be addressed thusly.

There's too much to talk about in your last note.  Let me focus on 
this one.

His sperm and her egg created the embryos, right?  Now, the point that 
I was trying to make is that the embryos are not "his" and they are 
not "hers," they are "theirs."  I'm not sure that we have agreement on 
that point, because the way that your sentences are worded, it sounds 
as if the embryo is "his" alone.  Do we agree that the embryos, 
biologically and legally, are "theirs"?

The tricky point comes in determining, if the embryos are owned by 
both of them, then, does one "owner" have the right to use an embryo 
without the consent of the other "owner"?  

Before I go on, let me say that I think that it is a _tough_ decision 
and one that I am glad that I am not being asked to make.

I say that the answer that feels right, on my gut level, is "it 
depends."  The embryos, in my opinion, were created, willingly, by 
both partners, with a given intent: to produce children (to assume 
anything more without it being explicitly drawn out in the contract 
would be doing just that: speculating and assuming).  

I say that the women should be able to continue with the process, for
which the embryos were created by verbal contract, without needing the
consent of the other owner, since there is nothing implicit about the
process that necessitates "the co-creator _must_ become the father." 
I also maintain that the woman acting without the consent of the other
owner removes all responsibility from the man for child-care payments
or support. 

To me, the man is saying, "You can't use those embryos.  Yes, my
intention was to use them to produce children, but, errr, I _meant_
'our' children.  I meant to specify that divorce would nullify their
use.  I mean, shouldn't that be implicit?  I mean, hey, I've changed
my mind."  In most other areas of contracts, we don't let people
"change their mind," and we don't judge the fulfillment of a contract
on terms that are supposed to be, well, like, "implicit"; it's either
in the contract or it isn't.  Emotionally, I understand 100% where the
man is coming from; but I don't think he has a leg to stand on
according to contract law. (I also don't think that the woman has a 
leg to stand on when it comes to asking for child-care, but that's 
another discussion.)

In addition, if the co-creators had explicitly tied the condition of
parenthood to both owners by use of a written or verbal contract ("in 
case of divorce, this is what happens to the embryos..."), then
I would say that, by contract, the woman should _not_ be allowed use
the embryos without the permission of the man, because that would be
violating the specific contract.  But, I maintain, the contract--as
with all contracts--has to be _explicit_. 

None of what I've said holds up if you disagree with my suggestion
that we legally treat frozen embryos as the "property" of the "owners"
who created them.  I fully understand that there are other premises to
other opinions.  In my view, I'm not concerned with "when life 
begins"; with other people, "when life begins" is the conerstone of 
their set of opinions on this case.

We don't have laws that cover this area (embryos created outside of
sexual intercourse) yet, in my opinion.  I am advocating that we rule 
on this scenario as I've stated.

[I feel like I'm beginning to repeat myself, so I'm going into
read-only mode. I know I've promised that before; I'll try to be
better about it this time.  :-) ] 


						--Gerry

>    Now, the point that 
>I was trying to make is that the embryos are not "his" and they are 
>not "hers," they are "theirs."
    
    Agreed.
    
>The tricky point comes in determining, if the embryos are owned by 
>both of them, then, does one "owner" have the right to use an embryo 
>without the consent of the other "owner"?  
    
    Ok.
    
>The embryos, in my opinion, were created, willingly, by 
>both partners, with a given intent: to produce children (to assume 
>anything more without it being explicitly drawn out in the contract 
>would be doing just that: speculating and assuming).  
 
    I don't think this has anything to do with assumptions. The father is
    quite clear about his intentions (now). Whether this was communicated
    to the mother is unclear. However, it's impact is limited to whether
    the mother would have changed her behavior as a result of the
    additional stipulation (if indeed it was never discussed). And I have
    to think "I doubt it."
    
    As far as I can see, the woman has no more right to the embryos than
    does the father. Since they cannot agree over the disposition of the
    embryos, neither should be able to continue the process since to do so
    would infringe on the rights of the other party. 
    
>I also maintain that the woman acting without the consent of the other
>owner removes all responsibility from the man for child-care payments
>or support. 
    
    Unfortunately, the courts have not so ruled.
    
    The Doctah
    
    <end of discussion>        

I wonder what would have happened if the father had sought "custody" of
the embryos, perhaps to be implanted in some other woman?  Or if he had
asked for half of them....  This case raises all SORTS of interesting
questions and ideas.

				Steve

This discussion reminds me of the old story about ham and eggs for breakfast.

	The chicken is involved, but the pig is committed.

The man was involved, but the woman was comitted. Unfortunately this situation
isn't simplistic enough for a good NOTES argument, so

	TTFN
	-- Charles

    Re: .36
    
    But Charles, in this case, the woman was NOT committed (using your
    example's definition of "committed").  I think that makes a big difference.
    
    		Steve

> But Charles, in this case, the woman was NOT committed (using your
> example's definition of "committed").  I think that makes a big difference.

Not as much commitment as I would like, for the sake of "my" argument, but 
the procedure for extracting eggs from the woman is much more complex than 
a sperm donation. Furthermore, she intended and intends to carry the embryo 
to term. That shows a certain commitment as well. I grant that the argument
is weak.

You're right, she hasn't really shown much more commitment than the man.
I find myself in the awkward position of "knowing what I think is right"
but not being able to justify it. My position is that until a fetus
viable it's the woman's business. After that they share equally. Further,
even after the fetus is independently viable, if it endangers the mother
then the mother is entitled to decide to abort. An embryo even more so.
(Everyone here DOES know the difference between an embryo and a fetus, 
right?) Pre-implantation embryos pose nasty philosophical problems. We 
can't use arguments based on the fact that the fetus is in some sense 
"part of the mother" physically, and arguments based on genetics apply
equally to the father.

It's too bad that Solomon isn't around to settle this one... now where
did I put my sword?

I dislike most discussions about abortion/reproductive rights because they
are generally so futile. Reasonable, thoughtful, caring people often come
to opposite conclusions from the same data. Oh well, that's what makes 
life interesting.

	-- Charles

P.S. Regardless of my personal feelings on the merits of the case, I think
the judge blew it. The ruling that life begins at conception wasn't under
consideration. He went WAY over what was needed to decide the case. There's
going to be a raft of trouble over this decision.

> Please tell me your definitions for each.

Eh? What do you mean? The definitions are available in the dictionary. Are you
asking me to look them up for you and type them in? Or were you implying that
definitions of these words were subjective? I didn't realize that there might
be discussion about them, I assumed that people who argue about reproduction
agreed on the basic vocabulary. My question was "testing understanding" as it
were. Perhaps you were too. In any case:

    em.bryo \'em-bre--.o-\ n [ML embryon-, embryo, fr. Gk embryon, fr. en- +
	brye] often attrib in to swell; akin to Gk bryon moss archaic 1a: a
	vertebrate at any stage of development prior to birth or hatching 1b:
	an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation that are
	characterized by cleavage, the laying down of fundamental tissues, and
	the formation of primitive organs and organ systems; esp : the
	developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end
	of the eighth week after conception 2: the young sporophyte of a seed
	plant usu. comprising a rudimentary plant with plumule, radicle, and
	cotyledons 3a: something as yet undeveloped 3b: a beginning or
	undeveloped state of something - used esp. in the phrase in embryo


    fe.tus \'fe-t-*s\ n [NL, fr. L, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to L
	fetus newly delivered, fruitful - more at FEMININE] : an unborn or
	unhatched vertebrate esp. after attaining the basic structural plan of
	its kind; specif : a developing human from usu. three months after
	conception to birth

or, from another source

    embryo (embre o), n., pl. -os, adj.
    --n.
    1. an organism in the earlier stages of its development, as before
       emergence from the egg or before metamorphosis.
    2. the young of a viviparous animal, esp. of a mammal, in the early stages
       of development within the womb, in humans being up to the early part of
       the third month. Cf. fetus.
    3. Bot. the rudimentary plant usually contained in the seed.
    4. the beginning or rudimentary stage of anything: He said that the party
       policy was socialism in embryo.
    --adj.
    5. embryonic.
    [ < ML embryon-, embryo < Gk embryon, n. use of neut. of embryos
       ingrowing, equiv. to em- EM- 2 + bry- (s. of bryein to swell) + -os
       adj. suffix]

    fetus (fet <schwa> s), n., pl. -tuses. Embryol.
    (used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or
       egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures
       are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans being from the
       latter part of the third month until birth. Also, foetus.  Cf. embryo
       (def. 2).
    [ < L: offspring, equiv. to *fe- breed (see FEME) + -tus n. suffix of
       result]

So, as you can see, the definition of embryo is the organism before it has
formed features characteristic of the species, which occurs around weeks 8-10
in humans, and a fetus is the organism after that. Do we agree?

I draw attention to the distinction because it is one of the interesting
points in human development, especially in the "when do sperm and egg become
a person" debate. Some of the interesting points in that debate are:

	sometime before conception
	at conception
	when it becomes recognizably human (the embryo/fetus distinction)
	at implantation
	at first heartbeat
	at first brain function
	at "quickening"
	at the end of the (first/second) trimester
	at week <n>
	at independent viabilty
	at birth
	sometime after birth

Does this help?

	-- Charles

    The complexity of extracting eggs vs. sperm should have no bearing
    whatsoever in who is more "committed."  The woman made the choice to go
    through that procedure, just as the male did.  If we went by the
    "complexity" guidelines, then that would suggest that a mother should
    always have more say over the fate of the child than the father.  Which,
    in my opinion, is pretty horrible notion.
    
    Leaving this case aside for a second, I also fail to see why a woman
    should have more say than the father once it has been removed from her
    body.  As far as I can tell, the whole gist of the pro-choice movement
    is that a woman has a right to control *her body*.  Once the embryo is
    not in her body, then it becomes "common property" (sorry, I can't
    think of a better term).
    
    Jim

    	RE: .41 
    
    	> As far as I can tell, the whole gist of the pro-choice movement
    	> is that a woman has a right to control *her body*.  Once the embryo 
    	> is not in her body, then it becomes "common property" (sorry, I 
    	> can't think of a better term).
    
    	One of the things that makes this case so complex is the fact that
    	it falls in a gray area between the two sides of the abortion issue.
    
    	Although I am pro-choice (and therefore, do not regard the embryos
    	as being "full human beings,") I would tend to side (in this case)
    	with whoever wanted to try to bring the embryos to life.
    
    	I don't feel either parent has an *obligation* to bring the embryos to
    	life, but since the embryos do already exist, I don't see why a loving
    	parent should be denied the right to voluntarily bring them to life
    	(whether that loving parent turned out to be the mother or the
    	father.)
    
    	If they *both* wanted to bring the embryos to life, then the
    	embryos should have been put in the custody of a third party (to
    	be shared between the two parents as they attempted to bring some
    	of the embryos to life.)  In other words, if the Mother succeeded
    	in bringing two children to life and had no interest in additional
    	children, the remaining embryos would be free to be included in
    	the father's attempts to have them implanted in another (willing)
    	woman, etc.
    
    	I don't see a reason in the world why this case had to involve
    	issues on whether or not embryos can be considered "life" (or
    	"full human beings," or whatever.)
    
    	It should have been decided on the basis of the embryos being
    	*potential* life (with the decision going in favor of whichever
    	parties were *willing* to bring the embryos to life.)
    
    	Therefore, while I agreed with what the judge decided, I'm very
    	much against the reasons he gave for coming to that decision.

    re: .40
    
    The supplied definitions are useless: they are either ambiguous,
    overlapping, or do not cover the entire spectrum of time between
    conception and birth - depending upon which portions of the definitions
    are being considered.

    Re: .44
    
    Mike, I'd disagree with your conclusion that precision is necessary.
    I believe that IMprecision is part of the way the world works, and
    we might as well put up with it.  It's the attempt to find precise
    answers to such questions as "when is a collection of cells a person"
    that gets us into such trouble.
    
    My view is that we need to accept that we may never find an exact
    answer to questions like these and should instead develop positions
    based more on what we are reasonably sure about, acknowledging that
    we are guessing or deliberately ignoring certain aspects.  Because
    if we don't, we'll just spin in circles forever.
    
    				Steve

Re: .43

I'm sorry you found the definitions useless. They do indeed overlap, however
they DO cover the entire spectrum from conception to birth, the first stages
after conception - zygote, morula, blastula, and gastrula are collectively
called the embryonic stage. The fetal stage follows, and continues until
partition.

Re: .44

> I was implying the definitions were subjective.

Ah. How sad. It makes for a convenient debating position, but doesn't lead to
any better understanding or communication.

> No.  In fact, your own sources don't agree with that.

I think you misunderstand. The line between embryo and fetus is in fact fuzzy.
There is no way you can say "this is an embryo" and "this is a fetus" during
that fuzzy period. Reasonable people can disagree. Before the eighth week it is
usually called an embryo. After the tenth week (the latter part of the third
month) it is usually called a fetus.

>> fetus (fet <schwa> s), n., pl. -tuses. Embryol.

> Here it suggests a fetus can also be an embryo

No Mike. Here it says that "fetus" is a term from Embryology.

> I hate to pick nits

You seem to spend quite a bit of your time engaged in an activity you claim to
dislike, Mike. Your actions speak louder than your words. I'm afraid I don't
believe you.

The definitions I gave are in fact clear to anyone who is trying to agree on
the terms. The dividing line between fetus and embryo is fuzzy, perhaps not
as fuzzy as the dividing line between "child" and "adult", but similarly. There
is imprecision in human development, glory in it, don't resent it. Everyone is
different, and that's good. The dividing lines between life and death, blob of
tissue and human being, child and adult are both thin and fuzzy.

This particular distinction, however, is rather intellectual and abstract,
and not particularly germane to the original basenote.

	Cheers,
	-- Charles

[PS. I'm off for a week, don't assume that because I don't answer I'm ignoring
you. On the other hand, don't assume I'm not.(Got that? Good.)]

    I would think this most recent ruling would affect the business of
    sperm banking.  If, after all, the frozen reproductive cells can be
    stored with the initial consent of one party and that party has no
    further control over the use of those cells, but has responsibility for
    the support of the child, I would be very hesitant to donate.  

    Mike,
    
    Charles said Fetus is a term *from* Embryology. He was refering
    back to one of his definitions. One of his definitions made
    reference to Embryology when speaking of a fetus. Your subsequent
    note appeared to misunderstand this, and appeared to take the
    Embrol. reference as meaning the two words were equivalent.
    
    The two terms embryo and fetus are not interchangeable in Biology.
    Embryo refers to the earlier stages and fetus to the later stages.
    Charles's definitions explained this quite clearly.
    
    Bonnie
    

    re: .46
    

> I'm sorry you found the definitions useless. They do indeed overlap, however
> they DO cover the entire spectrum from conception to birth,
    
> Before the eighth week it is
> usually called an embryo. After the tenth week (the latter part of the third
> month) it is usually called a fetus.
    
    My mistake.  I didn't realize we were counting in octal.
    
    Your own definition leaves a three week gap (weeks 8, 9, and 10)
    between "embryo" and "fetus".  Thus, it does NOT cover the entire
    spectrum between conception and birth.
    
>I think you misunderstand. The line between embryo and fetus is in fact fuzzy.
>There is no way you can say "this is an embryo" and "this is a fetus" during
>that fuzzy period. Reasonable people can disagree.
    
    What specific developmental milestones distinguish the transitions from
    embryo to fuzzy and from fuzzy to fetus?