Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:25PM   Printer-friendly
from the irreconcilable-differences dept.

A court battle between a divorced couple over the future of their frozen embryos began Monday with an attorney for the former husband accusing the woman of using the dispute to get money.

Dr. Mimi Lee, 46, a pianist and part-time anesthesiologist, married Stephen Findley, a wealthy executive, five years ago. Shortly before the wedding, Lee learned she had breast cancer.

Unsure whether the disease would make it impossible for her to have children, the couple went to a fertility center, where Lee's eggs and Findley's sperm created five embryos, now frozen.

Findley filed for divorce two years ago and wants the embryos destroyed. Lee, now infertile, wants to implant the embryos into a surrogate and have a baby. Without the embryos, she will never have a child who shares her genes.

If the embryos are implanted and carry to term, the ex-husband becomes a father without consent. If the embryos are destroyed, the ex-wife is denied the deep need to procreate. The embryos themselves have issues either way. Modern biomedical ethics are complex.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ese002 on Wednesday July 15 2015, @11:39PM

    by ese002 (5306) on Wednesday July 15 2015, @11:39PM (#209684)

    TFS:

    If the embryos are destroyed, the ex-wife is denied the deep need to procreate.

    Lee has a strong desire to procreate. She may have a right to procreate within physical limitations. But no individual has a need to procreate. Neither her life or health are endangered by inability to bear a biological child. If she wants to become a parent, even that is not significantly impaired by the inability to bear a biological child.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @12:05AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @12:05AM (#209695)

    > But no individual has a need to procreate.

    The species does. And if no individual has that need, how can the species have it?

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ese002 on Thursday July 16 2015, @12:28AM

      by ese002 (5306) on Thursday July 16 2015, @12:28AM (#209703)

      But no individual has a need to procreate.

      The species does. And if no individual has that need, how can the species have it?

      There are seven billion individuals. So long as as a few hundred of those seven billion procreate, the needs of the species are met. No particular individual needs to procreate and the species would actually be better served if most individuals did not procreate. If/when the population gets down to the thousands, it may be necessary for individuals to their duty but for now, reproduction is a selfish act.

      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday July 16 2015, @02:05AM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday July 16 2015, @02:05AM (#209749) Journal

        reproduction is a selfish act

        Yes, and it's also probably the most hardwired urge we have. That goes about double for women. You haven't seen crazy until you a see a childless, single woman hit 40 and her biological clock goes shproing!

        It's of course possible to both satisfy that drive and address overpopulation by having every woman have an average of fewer than 2.33 children (the replacement level of fertility [wikipedia.org]).

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:48AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:48AM (#209811)

          Yes, and it's also probably the most hardwired urge we have. That goes about double for women.

          Teenage boy's desire to have sex with every woman available for the foreseeable future or 40 year old woman's desire to have sex with one man...

        • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:48AM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:48AM (#209812)

          Yes, and it's also probably the most hardwired urge we have.

          That most of us have, anyway.

          And look where that has got us. Horrible overpopulation. Frankly, if you can't control yourself, you are weak and inconsequential.

          • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:03PM

            by Freeman (732) on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:03PM (#209999) Journal

            I know right, because you always hear about how children are starving in the streets in First World Countries. Oh..., right, You Don't, because we have things like Homeless Shelters, Food Banks, and Soup Kitchens. The main problem is that there is extreme poverty in areas where there isn't much else to do except have children and try to survive. Also, if you are in extreme poverty, having kids can spread the burden out. Assuming those kids make it to adulthood.

            --
            Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
            • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:24PM

              by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:24PM (#210012)

              I know right, because you always hear about how children are starving in the streets in First World Countries. Oh..., right, You Don't, because we have things like Homeless Shelters, Food Banks, and Soup Kitchens.

              I'm not quite seeing your point. It could be worse, so it's not bad? Interesting straw man you had there, as well.

              We need a global population decline and a change in attitude. Reducing poverty will help with this, but that alone might not be good enough.

              • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:57PM

                by Freeman (732) on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:57PM (#210039) Journal

                My point is that reducing the population in First World Countries won't help the Countries in Extreme Poverty. Also, the countries in extreme poverty don't see a need to reduce their procreation.

                --
                Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18 2015, @11:59AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18 2015, @11:59AM (#210755)

              I think it is disgraceful that supposedly first world countries need things like homeless shelters, food banks and soup kitchens. I think modern society still has a long way to go before it is truly civilised.

          • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:52PM

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:52PM (#210034) Journal

            Did you miss the part where people can have children and still have populations go down? You don't need to have zero children for overpopulation to recede. You just need to have fewer than 2.33 per woman.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
            • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @05:09PM

              by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday July 16 2015, @05:09PM (#210048)

              I must have missed the event where most people decided to be more selfless, more rational, and more coordinated.

              Well, we probably don't necessarily need that to happen. The right policies and the right conditions could help bring what you say about.

              • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday July 16 2015, @05:23PM

                by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday July 16 2015, @05:23PM (#210055) Journal

                More education and career opportunities for women seems to do the trick, too. Reference the declining birth rates of most industrialized countries.

                --
                Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:41AM

        by GungnirSniper (1671) on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:41AM (#209807) Journal

        but for now, reproduction is a selfish act.

        As the resident reactionary, I entirely disagree with you. Most advanced countries, East and West, are suffering a birth rate crisis that will see native population declines over the foreseeable future. The decline in people will cause economic decline. This is why our political masters are replacing the existing population with "migrants" or "refugees", to the permanent detriment to the long term security and national culture. What is effectively happening is a slow genocide, not unlike the one the natives of North America experienced. Or compare the birth rates of France and Germany over the last two hundred years to see the security implications.

        And this is all because people have been choosing new cars and bigger homes over having an extra child or two. So the truly selfish are those conspicuously consuming as much as they can for the purposes of leisure and social standing. Your cars will rust, your backyard pool will crack, your parties will end, but if you have children you will always have something to be rightfully proud of.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:51AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:51AM (#209815)

          There is no decline in population. Yes birthrates, but those are more taken up by immigrants. It is people of European ethnicity that are dropping in number and being replaced by everyone else. Someday diversity might mean hiring a white guy. Then again, no country outside the western world even gives a second thought to equality, so that might never happen.

          • (Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Thursday July 16 2015, @09:18AM

            by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Thursday July 16 2015, @09:18AM (#209869) Journal

            Then again, no country outside the western world even gives a second thought to equality, so that might never happen.

            That's not true. India, for instance, has "scheduled tribes" and "scheduled castes" where they have affirmative action to try to make up for arbitrary families being shut out of all but the "dirtiest" jobs for thousands of years because the state religion said so. They get preferences in college admissions and stuff. People still discriminate against the "lower castes" in India, but, from what I read, it's starting to disappear in urban areas at least. Culturally ingrained, religion-based familial discrimination is nasty stuff; it'll probably take them quite a while to eradicate it completely.

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by cubancigar11 on Thursday July 16 2015, @01:17PM

              by cubancigar11 (330) on Thursday July 16 2015, @01:17PM (#209906) Homepage Journal

              It is the opposite. After the introduction of affirmative action, caste based discrimination has been found to increase. While the general educated populace at the time of independence (~70 years ago) used to think that caste-ism will get eradicated eventually, current zeitgeist is that it exists everywhere. Thanks to affirmative action some very smart people are now doing caste politics instead of engineering or medicine.

              Btw, SC/STs have not been oppressed for "thousands of years". They are in exactly the same situation where Europe was before industrialization. In fact, early colonizers of India held castes as a superior way to control society than aristocracy that was outright based on violence and physical power.

              It is also well documented that caste was a fluid concept that invited its treatment according to how much power one held. For example, Guptas [wikipedia.org] were running a dynasty but now are a merchant class. Shrivastavas [wikipedia.org] were originally fighters from present day Afganistan but are now known for maintaining ledgers and generally being mathematicians.

              Scheduled tribe is a different concept altogether. They were literally tribes which controlled large swathes of forest land before the Government of independent India tried to 'educate' and 'upbring' them because those lands held minerals and tribes were really tribal - death by arrows are still common - that couldn't be controlled like pest as the British did with gun.

              The ugliest form of caste-ism, which is how it is shown in media, exists in Indian villages that are still largely agrarian. And I think it will only be solved by industrialization. A capitalist cannot afford to not hire someone due to his/her caste.

        • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @05:00AM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday July 16 2015, @05:00AM (#209817)

          Most advanced countries, East and West, are suffering a birth rate crisis that will see native population declines over the foreseeable future.

          We need global population declines.

          The decline in people will cause economic decline.

          Well, too bad. Any system that relies on infinite growth or unsustainable population levels is flawed beyond belief. Yes, there will be some growing pains, but it's ultimately necessary. What else would you have us do? Maintain unsustainable population growth so that the mystical, magical, and all-important 'conomy can thrive? That seems a bit shortsighted.

          What is effectively happening is a slow genocide, not unlike the one the natives of North America experienced.

          How the hell is that genocide?

          Or compare the birth rates of France and Germany over the last two hundred years to see the security implications.

          Not seeing it. Are you by chance referring to the terrorist bogeyman? Because I'm not a sucker, so I don't buy into the notion that it's as big of a problem as lots of fearmongers claim, especially in first world countries.

          And this is all because people have been choosing new cars and bigger homes over having an extra child or two.

          Excessive waste is also a problem. We shouldn't replace the excessive waste with more children, however.

          but if you have children you will always have something to be rightfully proud of.

          Not everyone wants children, so speak for yourself.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by linuxrocks123 on Thursday July 16 2015, @09:09AM

          by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Thursday July 16 2015, @09:09AM (#209865) Journal

          And this is all because people have been choosing new cars and bigger homes over having an extra child or two. So the truly selfish are those conspicuously consuming as much as they can for the purposes of leisure and social standing. Your cars will rust, your backyard pool will crack, your parties will end, but if you have children you will always have something to be rightfully proud of.

          My life will end. After that, I'll have nothing to be proud of except the impact I had on the world while alive. Part of that impact is living a good life for myself, which I could never do with a whiny, needy, mentally immature human dragging me down for two decades. Another part is helping other people. Helping a child grow up is certainly one way to have an impact on the world, but there are less pedestrian ways, too, such as taking seriously a career where you have the potential to help others through your work. And having a child is more of a crap shoot because the child might be defective somehow and be a net negative for the world. It's really rolling the dice.

          If western countries think having children is so important, they should subsidize it. But I think we have enough people around. We really don't need that many.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:51AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:51AM (#209814)

      Most individuals have the desire, but it's not a need. The species has no needs because it's not actually an individual; it describes a collective.

      I would suggest adopting, since many children who don't have homes already exist, but that would be insane.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday July 16 2015, @07:29PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday July 16 2015, @07:29PM (#210116) Journal

      The species also doesn't "need" anything. Planet Earth doesn't "need" humans. The Universe doesn't "need" Planet Earth. Etc.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]