Post Reply
Page 1 of 9  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 Next
Switch to Forum Live View If Life Begins at Conception, Why Are Embryos Property?
5 years ago  ::  Sep 09, 2009 - 12:43AM #1
itsacrucifiction
Posts: 2,687

 


Oregon court orders IVF embryos in divorce case destroyed


"The Oregon Court of Appeals in a Wednesday decision denied a father’s appeal to keep his six frozen embryos alive. The court, ruling that the issue is a matter of --->private property<---, declared that the embryos be destroyed by thawing, as ordered by his ex-wife, reports Catholic News Agency.


In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that the father, Dr. Darrell Angle, had no right to “impose a genetic parental relationship” on his ex-wife, Dr. Laura Dahl. According to LifeSiteNews, she did not wish to be considered the mother of the pre-born children in the event that they were carried to term.


Angle argued that the embryos were alive and deserved to be protected from destruction."


 


We now have several FACTS at hand:


 


1. Embryos are property, according to the court, meaning the husband's arguments the embryos were 1. alive and 2. deserved to be protected from destruction, were NONSENSE!


2. The decision was unanimous, meaning there was no dissent to the findings of the court.


3. Embryos are not 'persons' or 'people,' for if they were, the court could not have ordered them to be destroyed by thawing. However, it is both perfectly LEGAL and perfectly ACCEPTABLE for one to have one's own property destroyed.


 


In other legal wranglings, the incessant meddling of various PL groups themselves, have also led to 'embryo as property' legal precedent:


 


Georgia Set to Become First State with Embryo Adoption Law


"The nation's first law governing the adoption of embryos is set to take effect in Georgia after being passed by the legislature and signed by the governor.


The "Option of Adoption Act," which will go into effect July 1, will provide safeguards for both parties involved in an embryo adoption, which is a unique form of adoption in which a couple — often an infertile one — adopts one or more surplus embryos from a couple who has undergone in-vitro fertilization (IVF)....


Couples who undergo an embryo adoption in a state without such a law as Georgia's must sign private legal contracts that treat the embryo as --->property<---."




So we have no need or reason to fear patently false claims such as a 'person' exists at conception. Any time you hear such complete and utter nonsense, you now have case law to prove that embryos are, in FACT, nothing more than property, even in the cases where one is adopting so-called 'snowflakes.' Common sense, reason and rationality, is STILL the law of the land, even decades after Roe was settled.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 09, 2009 - 3:08AM #2
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Because the law sometimes subverts facts to meet an ends? Yeah... I know. It's rather shocking, but given the history of the law in regards to treating certain subsets of the human population as property, should it really be? It shouldn't. I think it's odd to assert that one human should ever be the property of another, available to be done with as the other pleases.


...And you really need to re-read the court case again. It has nothing to do with life not begining at conception. Just to throw that out there.


...And, while you're at it, you should also take a look at the Option of Adoption Act. I read the whole thing, and there's nothing about treating ZEF's as property in it. I dunno' where that came from. The law treats ZEF's the exact same way the law treats a child when it comes to adoption. So for a ZEF to be property, a child would also have to be property. The closest thing to property you get is that the parents have to sign over their rights, and even that's a stretch.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 09, 2009 - 9:44AM #3
Iwantamotto
Posts: 8,367

1. Embryos are property, according to the court, meaning the husband's arguments the embryos were 1. alive and 2. deserved to be protected from destruction, were NONSENSE!  2. The decision was unanimous, meaning there was no dissent to the findings of the court.  3. Embryos are not 'persons' or 'people,' for if they were, the court could not have ordered them to be destroyed by thawing. However, it is both perfectly LEGAL and perfectly ACCEPTABLE for one to have one's own property destroyed.


 


1.  Pets are property too, but they are alive and many have a thing about destroying them.


2.  So?


3.  I'm kinda surprised no one's mentioned slaves weren't considered people either, though that was a case of post-birth humans and an asinine denial of the obvious.  I concur that an embryo isn't a person, as there just isn't the stuff there to make one.  They may BECOME one, but MAY and ARE are two different words.  However, the way you describe the verdict rationale, it sets up for whatever arbitrary entity to be denied personhood just for the pleasure of getting rid of it.


 


edit:


After skimming through the court case, it kinda sounds like the guy just lost because he signed something without reading.  Sucks to be him.

Knock and the door shall open.  It's not my fault if you don't like the decor.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 09, 2009 - 11:17AM #4
itsacrucifiction
Posts: 2,687

Sep 9, 2009 -- 3:08AM, Bei1052 wrote:

Because the law sometimes subverts facts to meet an ends?



Proof? It is just as likely the court is simply recognizing that killing an embyro is nowhere near similar to killing a person. Killing a 40 year old wife and mother of three kids has consequences that killing an embryo never will.


 


Sep 9, 2009 -- 3:08AM, Bei1052 wrote:

I think it's odd to assert that one human should ever be the property of another, available to be done with as the other pleases.



We do not shed a tear in  our society if one kills non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons, whether that be a cabbage, mosquito or embryo.


 


Sep 9, 2009 -- 3:08AM, Bei1052 wrote:

...And you really need to re-read the court case again. It has nothing to do with life not begining at conception. Just to throw that out there.



It has to do with the FACT an embryo is not a person, which is why if a judge orders the destruction of several embryos, that judge can not be brought up on charges of mass or serial murder. So much for the argument that abortion equals murder, since these cases demonstrate quite clearly a person isn't killed whenever an abortion occurs.


 


Sep 9, 2009 -- 3:08AM, Bei1052 wrote:

....And, while you're at it, you should also take a look at the Option of Adoption Act. I read the whole thing, and there's nothing about treating ZEF's as property in it. I dunno' where that came from. The law treats ZEF's the exact same way the law treats a child when it comes to adoption.



Yet the method of 'adoption' of the embryos is a property transfer.


 


Sep 9, 2009 -- 3:08AM, Bei1052 wrote:

.So for a ZEF to be property, a child would also have to be property.



Children are not adopted by means of property transfer, as embryos are.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 09, 2009 - 11:31AM #5
itsacrucifiction
Posts: 2,687

Sep 9, 2009 -- 9:44AM, Iwantamotto wrote:

1.  Pets are property too, but they are alive and many have a thing about destroying them.



Pets have sentience, which ZEFs lack until the 7th month of gestation.


Sep 9, 2009 -- 9:44AM, Iwantamotto wrote:

2.  So?



It proves there is no dissent with respect to the fact the courts do not view embryos as persons or people, which proves arguments such as 'abortion is murder' are totally bogus.


 


Sep 9, 2009 -- 9:44AM, Iwantamotto wrote:

3.  I'm kinda surprised no one's mentioned slaves weren't considered people either,



WONG! The personhood of slaves was given legal status due to the fact slaves were recognized as 3/5 of a person. Additionally, given that it was physically possible for slaves to participate in EVERY right outlined in the Constitution, it became obvious that slaves could not possibly be merely property, but were in fact persons with respect to the Constitution, due full constitutional rights. We can not say the same for ZEFs.


Sep 9, 2009 -- 9:44AM, Iwantamotto wrote:

I concur that an embryo isn't a person, as there just isn't the stuff there to make one.



 


Embryos have no brain, no consciousness, no sentience, etc and so on, nor any other traits that would make it sensical to label them as persons. An embryo can be frozen and thawed out 5 years later. Try doing that with a person. This proves the PL arguments that a 'person' exists at conception to be totally bogus.


 


Sep 9, 2009 -- 9:44AM, Iwantamotto wrote:

However, the way you describe the verdict rationale, it sets up for whatever arbitrary entity to be denied personhood just for the pleasure of getting rid of it.



Hardly. The Constitution is in effect no matter what court decision we might discuss. It is the Constitution that determines whether one is a person with rights or not. Elephants, dogs, mosquitos, rats, zygotes,  embryos and fetuses are not persons with rights, according to the Constitution.


 


Sep 9, 2009 -- 9:44AM, Iwantamotto wrote:

After skimming through the court case, it kinda sounds like the guy just lost because he signed something without reading.  Sucks to be him.



 


He foolishly argued his case using textbook PL arguments, which have no basis in law whatsoever. He therefore lost this case for good reasons.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 09, 2009 - 1:59PM #6
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Sep 9, 2009 -- 11:17AM, itsacrucifiction wrote:

Proof? It is just as likely the court is simply recognizing that killing an embyro is nowhere near similar to killing a person. Killing a 40 year old wife and mother of three kids has consequences that killing an embryo never will.



The above is proof enough. Roe v. Wade created two distinct categories of humans which never existed prior: Human person and human non-person, the latter group created solely to deny a subset of the human population the same rights and protections afforded to the former group. See, in your statement above, you just flat out state that it's okay to kill one human but not another, without stating why you believe that is. Which, is no surprise, really.


We do not shed a tear in  our society if one kills non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons, whether that be a cabbage, mosquito or embryo.



A human embryo is equatable to a cabbage or a mosquito? REALLY??? Why is it that a great many PC'ers like to try to dehumanize a ZEF-- Of which everyone here was at one point in time.


It has to do with the FACT an embryo is not a person, which is why if a judge orders the destruction of several embryos, that judge can not be brought up on charges of mass or serial murder. So much for the argument that abortion equals murder, since these cases demonstrate quite clearly a person isn't killed whenever an abortion occurs.



No, it doesn't. The facts of the case are that the man and the woman signed an agreement prior stating what would happen in a divorce and the man later changed his mind. The courts then decided that the woman's choice of what happened to the zygotes trumped the man's choice of what happened to the zygotes. It had nothing to do with "personhood" or "treating ZEF's as property".


Yet the method of 'adoption' of the embryos is a property transfer.



That would mean that children are property, as well. But, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you didn't read the link I gave you.


Children are not adopted by means of property transfer, as embryos are.



There is no "property transfer" that relates to ZEF's that doesn't also relate to someone who is already born. What, exactly, are you reading?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 09, 2009 - 2:24PM #7
faith713
Posts: 3,892

Sep 9, 2009 -- 11:17AM, itsacrucifiction wrote:


We do not shed a tear in  our society if one kills non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons, whether that be a cabbage, mosquito or embryo.



How would you like it if someone ripped your arms and legs off then said it was OK because you're just a non-person?


"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." Abraham Lincoln


 


Millions of women have mourned over the loss of their unborn child:


www.myforeverchild.com/store/WsAncillary...


 


 


 


 


 


 

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."--John14:6

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.-- John 3:16

"We love Him because He first loved us."--1 John 4:9-10

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear ... "
1 John 4:18
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 09, 2009 - 4:45PM #8
itsacrucifiction
Posts: 2,687

Sep 9, 2009 -- 2:24PM, faith713 wrote:

How would you like it if someone ripped your arms and legs off then said it was OK because you're just a non-person?



Such a person would go to jail for violating my right to life, but then I am a sapient, sentient, conscious, person due constitutional rights. We do not grant constitutional rights to non-sentient, non-conscious non-persons such as cabbages, mosquitos or unborn. What sense does it make to grant a right of free speech to a cabbage, mosquito or unborn, given that none of the three cases can make ANY use whatsoever of such a right?


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 10, 2009 - 1:07PM #9
faith713
Posts: 3,892

Sep 9, 2009 -- 4:45PM, itsacrucifiction wrote:


Sep 9, 2009 -- 2:24PM, faith713 wrote:

How would you like it if someone ripped your arms and legs off then said it was OK because you're just a non-person?



Such a person would go to jail for violating my right to life, but then I am a sapient, sentient, conscious, person due constitutional rights. We do not grant constitutional rights to non-sentient, non-conscious non-persons such as cabbages, mosquitos or unborn. What sense does it make to grant a right of free speech to a cabbage, mosquito or unborn, given that none of the three cases can make ANY use whatsoever of such a right?


 




Comparing unborn children to cabbages and bugs is absurd.


People in a coma are not conscious, does that make them non-persons?


Your logic isn't making any sense.

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."--John14:6

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.-- John 3:16

"We love Him because He first loved us."--1 John 4:9-10

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear ... "
1 John 4:18
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 11, 2009 - 4:17PM #10
bluehorserunning
Posts: 1,754

Sep 9, 2009 -- 2:24PM, faith713 wrote:


How would you like it if someone ripped your arms and legs off then said it was OK because you're just a non-person...




If I had no brain at the time, I would neither notice nor mind.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 9  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook