Shots Across the Bow

A Reality Based Blog


It’s called a double standard.  You might want to look into it.

It's called a double standard. You might want to look into it. OK. Find the logical flaw in this argument:
Lawyers for Natallie Evans and Lorraine Hadley filed papers in the court as the first step to challenging a law that says both parties must consent to the storage and use of frozen embryos. The women argue the law violates their human rights because they are now infertile...Muiris Lyons, the women's lawyer, said the case would affect everyone in Britain undergoing in vitro fertilization treatment.

"The law as it stands gives their respective former partners a complete veto. They say that is unfair and discriminatory," said Lyons....Lyons said lawyers would argue that if Evans and Hadley had become pregnant naturally and the embryos were in their bodies, their partners would have no say at all.

So, according to Lyons, it's OK if the mother gets a complete veto, but not the father.

I'm not a lawyer. but the reasoning seems a little fishy to me. First, the whole argument for giving the mother unqualified control over the destiny of her fetus is the fact that it is in her body, or as some put it, "My body; my choice." If the embryo isn't in her body, that reasoning no longer applies. The fact is that they didn't become pregnant naturally, the embryos have never implanted in their uterus, so why should they have any more say in the outcome than the fathers? It follows that if both have an equal say, and they can't reach an agreement, then the embryos should not be implanted.
Posted by Rich
Commentary • (0) CommentsPermalink

***Due to Spammer activity, comments have been temporarily disabled.
Please contact us by email if you wish to comment and we will enter it manually


Bible Verse of the Day

Monthly Archives