Comments on: Frozen Embryos Are Not Unborn, Says Supreme Court

By: Scotlyn

Scotlyn — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:32:24 +0000

Yes, I am serious. Women should not be forced to become parents against their will, no more than men should.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:36:30 +0000

Bock – I do actually agree with you, in the sense that it's probably best to pre-empt a can of worms being opened up in future – what would happen in 20 year's time when the mother was too old to bear children, for example.

Scotlyn – should we turn our Sarcasmometers on or are you actually serious?

By: Scotlyn

Scotlyn — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:37:09 +0000

Bock:

The court decided that Thomas Roche could not be compelled to become a parent if he didn’t wish to

This is the key point of this decision – and it is a wonderful one. We now have the supreme court in the land saying that a man cannot be compelled to become a parent against his will. When this precedent is extended to women, as it logically must be, then there will be one less bar to women being able to breathe the sweet air of freedom in this society.

By: Bock

Bock — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:33:29 +0000

The operative word is "potential". The embryo might become a human being if other things happened, including implantation.

In just the same way, and by the same definition, a sperm and egg are potentially human if they become fused and implanted and carried to term.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:28:54 +0000

Without reference to entities (fictional or otherwise); could it not be argued that since, without artificial intervention subsequent to the fertilisation of an egg thus producing an embryo, that collection of cells will develop into a human being and *only* a human being – there being 6.5 billion cases on this planet that prove this, and 0 that disprove it. (unless there are people out there giving birth to chickens or something)

Therefore, that collection of zygotes is a human being in potentia, and although we may lack the ability to distinguish it from, say, a fertilised dog embryo, nevertheless we have to acknowledge that there is, in fact, a difference, and forbearing intervention or death by disease or mutation, it is a human.

And an embryo isn't just "a bunch of cells". Cancer is "just a bunch of cells" as well, will it grow into a sentient creature?Also, as any fule no', dandruff is a bunch of dead and dying skin cells. How anyone could equate them to a developing life-form is beyond me.

Not saying that the above is necessarily what I believe, but given the huge row there was over science vs. faith on this site recently, I would have expected a bit more logical argument.**

Besides, someone has to disagree with you ;)

**not, of course, that we have the right to expect or demand anything from you, etc

By: Bock

Bock — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:21:03 +0000

Well, fictional entities don't bring much to the discussion, but the Supreme Court are quite clear that an unimplanted embryo is not a person under the law.

By: Jethro Tull

Jethro Tull — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:54:50 +0000

Good article. But is a being with half a brain a person Bock? When does "personhood" begin? This is the problem. I agree with you that an embyro is nothing more than a bunch of cells but a believer in a God will bring the fictional entity the "soul" into the argument.

By: Vincent

Vincent — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:50:26 +0000

Bock, all over Ireland you have the Innocence graveyards. Hangover from the old days. Miscarried babies were buried within the precincts. But that is a bit of a misnomer, it is un -Baptised babies that are placed in the ancient ground.