Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    Sue
    
    I don't think you're off the deep end, but I think we have to look
    at what the word "custody" means.
    
    According to my handy dandy American Heritage Dictionary, office
    edition, the first definition of custody is "The act or right of
    caring for or guarding."  In this instance, I think the judges 
    term was probably most appropriate.  It really is up to both of 
    these parties to keep these "assets" from being damaged.
    
    IMO only
    E Grace

    But my whole point is that here, in the U.S., custody is awarded when
    you are talking about living things, i.e. kids and pets....
    
    If embryos are treated in the same manner as children, how far away
    from "THE HANDMAIDS TALE" are we?

    Guess it depends of which school of thought you subscribe to-
    some believe embryos are living things, others think they aren't.
    Those who feel embryos are living beings probably won't be very
    upset, those who believe they aren't living beings will probably
    feel disturbed. 
    
    

    in re .3
    
    I don't think that anyone doubts that zygotes/embryos/fetuses, are
    *alive* - they metabolize, (ingest, respire, excrete, secrete) and
    reporduct and differentiate. I think the division is more between
    those who believe that a fertilized egg or zygote is the equivalent
    of a baby and those who believe that the point where it is considered
    a child/baby (and there fore elligible for 'custody') is somewhat 
    later in the gestational process.
    
    Thanks for your input.
    
    Bonnie

    On the other hand, do you want to treat something that could
    become a living human being as just another piece of property? 
    
    If it's just another marital asset, they could sell the embryos
    to, say, another couple who wants children.  Or to a major company
    who has decided to raise their own employees.
    
    --bonnie

    yeah, but Bonnie, those are not necessarily good criteria for being
    alive.  They do not respire (they would drown), they "ingest nutrients
    and oxygen from blood, get what they need,  and return the unusable
    parts back out through the blood.  So does my liver.  It's not *alive*.
    
    These things are fertilized eggs.  If they are to be treated like
    children in this case, then *all* fertilized eggs should be treated
    like children.  All abortion clinics should be closed down.....
    
    Can you see where this might be heading....?  The potential for life is
    not the same as alive.  I grant you, it's really not in the same class
    as my liver, but it is *closer* to my liver than it is to a child.
    
    If a court can decided that  an embryo is alive, then we are a whole
    lot closer to an Orwellian nightmare than I thougt.  What is the next
    step? 
    
    		"Unauthorized use of potentially viable substances"
    			
    
    I guess I am the only one to whom this is upsetting.
    

    Sue,
    
    I'm equally upset with the decision, the point I'm trying to make here
    is that by the scientific definition of life, they are indeed alive.
    Just as your liver is also alive.
    
    I think you are confusing 'ensouled' or 'enpersoned' or some such
    with living. If a cell metabolizes and grows it is alive. Thus a
    fertilized cell is alive, it is certainly not dead.
    
    But it is not yet a baby or a person.
    
    Semantics gets us in trouble sometimes doesn't it!?!
    
    Bonnie

    I believe that the couple was still married when the embryos were
    frozen. (Silly me, of course they were. That's what this is about.)
    When they separated, he didn't want the embryos implanted in her womb.
    He, basically, didn't weren't her being mother to her children. A lower
    court agreed with her. Saying that they were hers. This new ruling says
    that he has a say in what will happen to the embryos. I think that this
    is carrying joint custody a bit far. I really think that they should be
    hers to destroy or try to give birth to as she sees fit. He did agree
    to the freezing in the first place and shouldn't change his mind now.
    
    Does anyone know if he has stated any plans yet. I'd hate to see them
    destroyed out of spite on either party's part. Although I think she
    said that she wants to try and have a baby through one of these
    implantations.
    
    Phil

    re: .6
    
    I think I didn't make my point clearly.
    
    Yes, the idea that they've ruled these fertilized embryos to be
    children is upsetting. 
    
    But I disagree that they should be considered just property,
    either.  If they're not alive right now, they can be in the
    future, which is not something you can say about the couple's bank
    account or their furniture or their intagible marital assets.  
    
    The former might lead to an Orwellian society, but the latter
    leads right to _Brave_New_World_.  Or worse.
    
    It's a blank area in the law, where what people are doing is way
    ahead of what the legal eagles can perceive.  But I suppose it's
    too much to ask a legistlature that can't even face a budget
    without flinching to deal with really tough issues. 
    
    --bonnie

    Phil, 
    
    	He agreed to these attempts at artificial insemination when they
    were still married.  They have since decided to seperate/divorce.  He
    doesn't want children with this woman.  Since this was their chosen
    venue for parenthood, it should cease with the divorce.  I cannot
    imagine a court forcing a man to allow impregnation with his sperm to
    occur without his consent.  His sperm is just as sacred as her ovum.
    
    And Bonnie, in their present state, the embryo's ARE NOT ALIVE.  They
    are frozen beyond "life".  They are, at present, and interesting
    collection of DEAD cells.  They do not meet even the strictest
    biological definition of alive.  They have the *potential* for being
    alive, if they were unfrozen and cell division began occuring again...
    
    
    but my point is that this feels like a very dangerous precedent...
    
    albeit a vague one.

    RE: Bonnie R.
    
    But the potentiallity (egad , that looks awful :-) ) of these cells
    really doesn't seem valid.  If you equate the potential for life with
    life, then the killing of something with the potential for life is as
    bad as killing something that is alive.  
    
    Then if that is the case, then sperm have the potential for life (all
    they need is an egg, a healthy uterus, ....) and eggs have the
    potential for life (all they need is a sperm, healthy uterus....)...
    
    The potential for life for those embryos is dependent on a lot of
    things.  They just don't become babies.  And the "potentiality" is
    pretty slim, actually (considering the failure rate of this type of
    procedure). 
    
    My point is, that the "potential for life"  issue is dangerous.  If
    that is the case, then people on life support (not just food, but the
    whole nine yards) cannot be turned off and allowed to die because they
    have the "potential" for being alive again.

    Sue,
    
    Point made, I was speaking of embryos/fetuses in general, you are
    quite right that *these* particular zygotes are not alive but
    in a suspended state at this time.
    
    Further, the mother/wife/woman involved in this case has remarried
    and does not want to try and carry the embryos to term anymore
    (according to the news article).
    
    Bonnie

    Well, at least the poor guy doesn't have to worry about child support
    for children as a result of these embyo's.  That would be a real
    bummer.

    Sue,
    
    We seem to have crossed notes here. 
    
    I think it is okay to remove living tissue from the body, we do it 
    all the time in the case of cancer surgery. 
    
    A sperm is *alive* not dead, the egg is *alive* not dead, we are
    not taking dead, non metabolizing material and giving it life at 
    some magic point.
    
    The issue is not if it is living, (at least in my opinion) but
    what the significance of that life is and the stage of its
    development.
    
    Bonnie

    re: .11
    
    I'm not trying to say they're already human; just that because
    they can become human, they can't be in the same legal category as
    a chair or a pet dog, either.
    
    Yes, a humanity-begins-at-conception argument is very dangerous
    and disturbing.   And so is the alternative.  Technology is
    presenting us with some really difficult and dangerous situations
    for which our present legal and social institutions have no
    provision.
    
    Suppose these embryos were to be declared another marital asset. 
    If it's true that neither parent wants them any more, I presume
    they could then be disposed of and divided as any other assets of
    the marriage could be, right?  
    
    There are many couples out there who are infertile.  Presumably
    some of them could be helped by these fertilized eggs.  Granted
    that the odds of any of them, let alone all of them, actually
    making a baby is very small, it still represents hope to some
    childless couple.
    
    Would it be right of the divorcing couple to sell those embryos to 
    a couple who can't conceive their own children?  And then divide
    the profits, of course.  
    
    If those embryos are still in the lab forty years from now, and
    still viable, should the lab be able to sell them -- to recover
    storage costs, perhaps?  Could the lab  hire host mothers to bear
    the children and then raise them as children of the lab? 
    
    --bonnie

    RE:-1
    
    -bonnie,
    
    Very interesting points.....and, yes, it is scary.
    
    Kate

    I don't see how donated ova or embryos are any different than donated
    sperm, which has been done for a long time and which people do pay
    for.  What is so scary about it?  I think it would be scary if these
    were used in genetic engineering experiments or something.
    	Linda

    re: .17
    
    I have only questions here, not answers.  I have opinions of
    sorts, but overall I see mostly contradictions. 
    
    I'm trying to figure out if there's any way to stop the embryos
    from being used for genetic engineering or radiation experiments
    or whatever else a careless or indiscriminate person, lab or
    business might want to use them for without declaring that life
    begins at conception.  Which is equally scary in the other
    direction.  
    
    It seems pretty straightforward when someone donates an egg to
    someone else to make a child -- that's essentially what Ms.
    Whitehead did.  But what about when it's the womb that's being
    donated or purchased?  I don't have to stretch my imagination very
    far to see a whole new subclass of healthy young mostly Hispanic
    and black women selling their wombs to produce babies for couples
    who can't have their own. 
    
    I have to stretch it a little farther to see the lab using host
    mothers to bring these frozen embryos to term.  Who gets custody
    of those children?  
    
    The woman in California is asking for a ruling that the woman
    whose womb carries the child is legally the birth mother, that
    genetics are irrelevant.  But in many cases previously it's been
    ruled that the father's genetics do matter; the genetic father of
    a child can sue for the right to visit his father.  The sperm
    banks require extensive legal screening and paperwork to make sure
    the donors can't try to get to the child they fathered, but
    [according to an AP article I read a couple of weeks ago] most
    family law experts don't think those legal waivers would hold up
    if they were ever challenged. 
    
    --bonnie

    Is ruling that fertilized eggs are "human life" necessary to make
    certain uses of them illegal?  Couldn't it be done based on ethics?
        	Linda

    It probably could, although "ethics" don't have any force of law,
    and many laws that have been passed aren't exactly ethical.  And
    you should try going to a question-and-answer with a congressional
    candidate and ask what laws and so on s/he thinks are needed to
    protect everybody's rights in these technological situations. Talk
    about blank looks.
    
    I guess the thing that really bothers me is that it's being done
    on a case by case basis, often after the wrong has been done,
    without any thought for the moral and ethical issues.  Technology
    is so far ahead of what most people think is possible. . .
    
    Interestingly, according to the Associated Press article I
    mentioned, California law (this is in reference to the woman
    carrying another couple's child, not to the frozen embryos)
    requires that judges not issue a broad ruling when a narrow one is
    possible, so the judge in this case will probably simply wait
    until the child is born and then rule based on the
    long-established "what is best for the child" principle.
    
    --bonnie

    RE:  last few
    
    
    Maybe *that* is why the judge ordered joint custody?
    
    E Grace

    
    A woman is on hunger strike here in the UK as a protest at a 
    life imprisonment sentence for stabbing her husband to death.
    
    The same week that she was convicted a man was given two month's
    suspended sentence for killing his wife.
    
    The legal issue seems to be "provocation". The provocation factor,
    which can reduce a murder charge to manslaughter, is now a matter
    of heated debate and women's groups are lobbying for the law to
    be changed.
    
    The moot point seems to be (and I'm no lawyer) that for provocation
    to be invoked the crime has to be committed in the heat of the moment.
    If there's a cooling off period or any foresight involved, it's not
    applicable. This totally fails to take account of two factors
    specific to women:-
    
    1) There is no provision for taking long-standing provocation into
       account. So if a woman was beaten every day for 18 years by her
       husband and, one day, took two hours after a beating to crawl
       into the kitchen and get a knife and then attacked him this
       would currently *not* be "provocation" and she'd be charged
       with murder
    
    2) Men are arguably more likely to lash out in the heat of the moment
       because they are physically stronger. A woman would need to plan,
       arm herself or delay her action until the man was in a weaker
       position (e.g. asleep) if she wanted a chance of "equal combat"
    
    Two other women's cases are coming up for appeal in this area.
    One Asian woman endured violent beating for over ten years until
    one night she poured petrol over her husband as he slept and set
    fire to him.
    Another woman stabbed her husband after eighteen years of abuse.
    She will not reveal publically what he did to her over that period
    as she still, amazingly, "doesn't wish to besmirch his name and
    memory in public". Her lawyer described it as "pretty horrific".
    
    New home office figues published yesterday:-
    
    Each year in the UK 	75 men kill their domestic partners
    				15 women kill their d.p.'s
    
    				40% of the women are convicted of murder
    				15% of the men are convicted of murder
    
    The "provocation" law accounts for most of the % difference in
    convictions.
    
    What's the situation around this in the USA?
    
    'gail                                       
    

re: .22

The USA is not much better than the UK.  Women are routinely imprisoned for
excessive amounts of time for killing their abusive SO's (15 - 20 years)
while men who murder their SO's TEND to get a sentence that puts them back 
on the street within 8 years.  That is a short enough time period that small 
children at the time of the murder can end up IN THE CUSTODY of the man who 
killed their mother.  The disparity in sentences was highlighted in an article
I read approx. 4 months ago in some woman's magazine or another...with the
usual horrible case histories.  The problem seems again to be the one of
"planning" that is implied by the way in which women dispatch the creeps...
usually when they are drunk, drugged, or asleep.  Of course, if she tried
anything while he was awake and aware, he'd simply kill HER, but noone thinks
about that.  And the problem is enhanced by the fact that the majority of
prosecuting attorneys are MEN and they aren't comfortable thinking about a
woman "getting away with it" (this is, of course, my opinion and not published
fact).

A ray of hope has arisen in California....a woman who was horribly brutalized
by her husband killed him...and the jury refused to convict - even though
the prosecutor was determined that they should...perhaps things are getting
better.  However, our real issue is the problem of men killing their SO's
when there is a "peace bond" put out by the woman (a notice to keep away or
be jailed) or when the stupid judges let him out on bail after he has been
arrested for beating her.  Until there is a way for a woman to put him in
jail and KEEP HIM THERE once he is jailed, women will have to kill these
men to be free of them.

    <...Women are routinely imprisoned for excessive amounts of time for
    <killing their abusive SO's (15 - 20 years) while men who murder their
    <SO's TEND to get a sentence that puts them back  on the street within 8
    <years.  
    If you can cite statistics supporting the implication of above that
    women on average -say- get roughter sentences than male counterparts
    that is an horrific indictment of the American justice system. On the
    other hand perhaps "routinely" and "TEND" were intended to imply some
    other message than -sort of- on average 15-20yrs vs 8yrs
    
    				herb
    

    
    I believe those trends in different sentencing patterns are well
    documented -- very little time for men who kill their wives and 
    harsher sentences for women who kill their husbands.  Do folks doubt
    these disparities?  I'm sure someone has or could find the stats if
    that's necessary.  I believe I saw a piece on 60 minutes (or one of
    those) on women in prison -- the vast majority of women serving time
    for murder - killed their abusive husbands.
    
    The "Battered Women's Syndrome" has been allowed as a defense since the
    late seventies, but apparently not all judges allow it.  Sometimes a
    woman who has been abused for years  and then finally kills her abuser
    isn't allowed to present evidence of the beatings.
    
    Justine

in fact, the statistics I stated in my reply were taken from 10 years of
Western US sentencing of men and women for murder of their spouses.  The
information was reported in the local Newspaper and was also reported on
all major channels new programs here in San Jose.  Another interesting
aspect of this subject:

	the same study discovered that men were, ON AVERAGE, sentenced
	to LONGER prison terms for assulting, BUT NOT NECESSARILY KILLING,
	a total stranger than the average sentence for KILLING a spouse
	or lover.

This is the meat of the problem....that we, as women, are still, at some
subliminal level, perhaps, considered "property" of the man with whom we
are involved.  Society seems to be much more outraged at the idea that
a man will attack a stranger than at the idea that he will kill his spouse.