The Personalist Project

Comments (7)

Jules van Schaijik

#1, Mar 1, 2012 7:01am

What a moral mess!  I'd be interested to read your analysis. I don't know where to begin.

Colleen Toder

#2, Mar 1, 2012 1:27pm

Samantha -- on what grounds did the courts rule for the father? I would guess it would be something like he would be made a father without his willing it -- which is almost like the grounds for abortion, right? that women should not be "forced" to bear children they don't want?

cheryl forbes

#3, Mar 1, 2012 3:45pm

Wow!. This type of case really smacks of slavery. It is like the reverse of the Emancipation Proclomation. First, black slaves were property and then found to be human. In the case of John and Peggy's children, they are babies with a court trying to turn them back to property so they can destroy them. God love them all...

Katie van Schaijik

#4, Mar 1, 2012 4:35pm

I wish the proliferation of horror stories like  would open more eyes to the dubiousness of in vitro fertilization.

Clearly there is no just solution to this case.  The attempt to resolve it legally only highlights the moral chaos invovled in "producing" babies.  

What will become of us?

Samantha

#5, Mar 12, 2012 11:21am

 

Colleen Toder, Mar. 1 at 1:27pm

Samantha -- on what grounds did the courts rule for the father? I would guess it would be something like he would be made a father without his willing it -- which is almost like the grounds for abortion, right? that women should not be "forced" to bear children they don't want?

 In the past, the courts have ruled in favor of the man's right to veto life, "absolutely:"

http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/embryos.html

"The developing case law on the legal status of frozen embryos reaches a relatively uniform result. As an incident of the constitutional right to privacy, either genetic parent has an absolute right to prevent implantation of any frozen embryo. That right is stronger than the right of the other parent to have a child, and even stronger than a contract which on its face requires implantation. It is possible that the right to bear a child might control if implantation is literally the only way in which the proponent will ever be able to have a child. But the general tone of the cases suggests that the right to veto implantation is probably close to absolute."

http://www.divorcesource.com/research/dl/children/03mar54.shtml

Samantha

#6, Mar 12, 2012 11:22am

 

Jules van Schaijik, Mar. 1 at 7:01am

What a moral mess!  I'd be interested to read your analysis. I don't know where to begin.

 I created a new post on the member page addressing my full response to this issue. It's a bit long, but I took my time considering various resources and arguments, meditated on the issue for a couple of weeks, and I finally came up with my conviction.

Samantha

#7, Mar 12, 2012 11:27am

 

cheryl forbes, Mar. 1 at 3:45pm

Wow!. This type of case really smacks of slavery. It is like the reverse of the Emancipation Proclomation. First, black slaves were property and then found to be human. In the case of John and Peggy's children, they are babies with a court trying to turn them back to property so they can destroy them. God love them all...

 The problem with this case is the rampant relativism in the legal decisions today. While some argue adamantly that the embryos are not persons, therefore the veto is priveledged to the life, others disregard the personhood question and construct their argument on an economic or legal morality based on the parent's right to choose.

Sign in to add a comment, or register first.

Forgot your password?