Two people fall in love and want to have children. For whatever reason they try in vitro fertilization which successfully results in embryos ready to be brought to term at their discretion. But they fall out of love. One person still wants those embryos to become children and the other person does not.
This very personal battle has in recent weeks become public for the actor Sofia Vergara and her ex fiance Nick Loeb as he claimed in tabloid newspapers that she wanted to destroy frozen embryos they had created. On Thursday he brought this battle to the New York Times which ran his editorial about why their two embryos have a right to live .
A woman is entitled to bring a pregnancy to term even if the man objects Loeb wrote. Shouldn t a man who is willing to take on all parental responsibilities be similarly entitled to bring his embryos to term even if the woman objects
Loeb said that the couple agreed to use in vitro fertilization but the refusal of Vergara star of ABC s Modern Family to have children led to the end of their relationship. Now he is seeking the power to bring the embryos to term without Vergara s consent and contrary to a document they signed that stated that they both had to agree to that happening.
Susan Crockin an attorney who has focused on reproductive technology law for nearly 30 years said she was surprised how clearly Loeb s argument seemed to be driven by the right to life argument. In Loeb s editorial he writes about a former girlfriend from his 20s having an abortion his Catholicism and his plans to have children with another partner.
When we create embryos for the purpose of life should we not define them as life rather than as property Loeb wrote. Does one person s desire to avoid biological parenthood (free of any legal obligations) outweigh another s religious beliefs in the sanctity of life and desire to be a parent
He has other far easier and much less legally strained and entangled ways to be a father so this seems to be much more of a philosophically or religiously driven position than a parenting one said Crockin.
For some people involved in such disputes these embryos represent the last chance for them to have a biological child. In Illinois courts are examining the case of a woman who can only have a biological child if she could use frozen embryos made with her ex boyfriend. The more than four year legal battle is under appeal and once a decision is announced it could head to the state supreme court.
Crockin said these arguments pit one party s constitutional right to procreate against the other party s constitutional right to not procreate. Also at hand is whether a decision made by a couple can be bound to the individual and the nature of such an agreement.
There are some courts that would say you made that decision when you made the embryos You very thoughtfully deliberately decided to create embryos and it was a lot more thoughtful than getting someone pregnant in the backseat of the car and that decision is one we re going to hold you to Crockin said.
Loeb and Vergara s lawyer Fred Silberg have said the couple signed an agreement that both had to consent about the future of the embryos. Silberg also disputed the claim that Vergara wants to destroy the embryos in a statement to People magazine.
She has always maintained that they be kept frozen a fact of which Loeb and his counsel have always been aware despite Loeb s statements to the contrary Silberg said. Vergara who has happily moved on with her life is content to leave the embryos frozen indefinitely as she has no desire to have children with her ex which should be understandable given the circumstances.
American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) spokesman Sean Tipton said that if two people want to change the nature of their agreement it should be considered and agreed upon by both people. An op ed in the New York Times may not be the best place to resolve these issues he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment