Female. male or embryo rights?

Myoldnamebroke on 7/3/2006 at 23:47

The judgement, which is (http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=11&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=&sessionid=6102125&skin=hudoc-en) here, puts strong weight on the gender neutrality of their argument, which is a major point of departure from you.

The dissenting opinion also argues that the legislation should allow the possibility of a case-by-case examination of these scenarios, and finds in favour of her because she has no other option for a genetically related child. That is to say, in this specific instance, destroying the embryos constitutes a destruction of the woman's Article 8 rights rather than a mere restriction. Their opinion is that Parliament should not give one partner power to destroy the other partner's rights. This is roughly in accordance with what you've arrived at in your final post, but you've gone through some mad steps to get there, including the necessary primacy of the mother's rights. That's the difference between the basis of the dissenting opinion and yours.

"The mother's right to proceed with the pregnancy outweighs the father's right to veto it".

"the interests of the party who withdraws consent and wants to have the embryos destroyed should prevail (if domestic law so provides), unless the other party (a) has no other means to have a genetically-related child; and (b) has no children at all; and (c) does not intend to have recourse to a surrogate mother in the process of implantation. "

----

beaten to it by RBJ.

other thoughts that cropped up while reading:

I find it slightly odd that the dissenting opinion recognises the father's right not to start a family. At the same time, it criticises UK law for allowing one partner to control the rights of the other. But to be able to go beyond 'this is within the scope of states to decide' and argue that one partner trumps the other partner's rights, it must hold that there's a stronger right to have a child than to not to be made to have a child. For even if she has no other possibility of children, her using the embryo would constitute a total destruction of the chap's right not to have a child. Yet it offers no reason for the primacy of the right to have a child other than 'she really wants one'

Feel free to point out to my layman's eyes where I've misread it, if anyone else wants to read the judgement :) It can't be as simple as how I've painted it.

SD on 7/3/2006 at 23:48

Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky

Oh fucking christ. You have a whole thread of your usually twattery, and a seven page dissenting opinion, and the mere fact that you can pick out one sentence that is similar in each does not mean that taken in sum, you have anywhere near the same argument overall.

I never said it was the same argument overall, I said their opinion matched what I was saying. Which it does, in part.

For the record, the "outlandish shit" I have been spouting in this thread amounts to three separate opinions that I have expressed:

1) that the law as it is written is woefully inadequate (ECHR dissenters agree: 'We are not satisfied of the quality' of the domestic law')

2) that the woman's right to proceed with the pregnancy outweighs the man's right to veto it (ECHR dissenters agree: 'We think that the exceptional situation of the applicant, who has no other means of having a genetically-related child, should have been made a matter of a deeper consideration by the domestic authorities')

3) that we should treat an embryo conceived out of the womb as we would an embryo conceived in the womb, and give rights over its future to the woman (ECHR disagrees, preferring a gender-neutral outlook)

Please explain how the ECHR dissenter's opinion, which agrees with me on two out of three of my points, constitutes "little, if anything in common".

Rug Burn Junky on 7/3/2006 at 23:56

Quote:

So, pretty much the same opinion as me, all things told.

Quote:

I never said it was the same argument overall,

ONE OF THESE THINGS IS NOT LIKE THE OTHER!

Come clean, big guy: are you naturally this retarded, or do you have to work at it?

Myoldnamebroke on 7/3/2006 at 23:58

No, this is the outlandish stuff:

Quote:

It's frankly a nonsense that he should have any more rights than an ordinary sperm donor in this instance, and I would hope that the law would be changed to reflect that element of common sense.

Quote:

It ought to treat a frozen embryo in a glass jar as entirely the property of the mother, as it would treat an embryo within the mother herself.

The court does address your third point, and clearly disagrees with you. It says on numerous occasions that they have equal rights, and most clearly here:

'The Court was not persuaded by the applicant's argument that the situation of the male and female parties to IVF treatment could not be equated and that a fair balance could in general be preserved only by holding the male donor to his consent. While there was clearly a difference of degree between the involvement of the two parties in the process of IVF treatment, the Court did not accept that the Article 8 rights of the male donor would necessarily be less worthy of protection than those of the female; nor did it regard it as self-evident that the balance of interests would always tip decisively in favour of the female party.'

The issue of quality of legislation arises because it recognises the balancing act that must be made between the two partners' rights. It believes the law isn't of sufficient quality because a bright line approach doesn't give sufficient credit to the complexity of this balancing act. Your reasoning is that a bright line approach is sufficient, but primacy must be given to the woman.

Their agreement with you in the second case is contentious, because they are refering to this one instance, and you seem to be making it out to be a general case.

SD on 8/3/2006 at 00:11

Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky

ONE OF THESE THINGS IS NOT LIKE THE OTHER!

"pretty much the same" != "the same"

As for the rest of it... I can't even be bothered, you know. I've had enough of silly arguments like this where people just disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me, even though my points are perfectly valid, so I will just say good day to you all and leave this thread right now.

Rug Burn Junky on 8/3/2006 at 00:27

Wow.

Just wow.

Do you really think that that's what's happening here?

That the semantic difference between "pretty much the same" and the "same" somehow matters when you're actually ENTIRELY FUCKING DIFFERENT?

That poor little StD is being persecuted? Even though pretty much everyone has pointed out the logical flaws in your arguments?

That your points are "perfectly valid" even though the guys who got it WRONG on the court won't even go as far as you did?

Because that's just... well, it's just ...

No, there are no words to describe the level of self delusion that must be involved to come to those conclusions.

Can we also assume that whatever small flame of self awareness that seemed to be kindled in (http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104292) this thread has been extinguished in the squishy wet recesses of your skull?

Come on, bubbelah, don't take the easy way out and blame it on the mean people at TTLG, that's a fucking cop-out and you know it. Granted, most people here do think you're a twat, but don't flatter yourself by assuming that they would think enough of you to change their opinions just so that they could disagree with you. They're saying that you're saying stupid shit because, well, you're saying stupid shit.

dvrabel on 8/3/2006 at 01:42

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

...so I will just say good day to you all and leave this thread right now.

Yay! Success! Good work team. ;)

Shadowcat on 8/3/2006 at 01:56

I wouldn't call it "success" -- I don't think his opinion was changed at all for all of that arguing -- but at least this thread can now die a quiet death.

Jennie&Tim on 8/3/2006 at 03:49

Quote Posted by Scots_Taffer

I could be guessing wrong and I'm not circumventing 3 pages of hilarity, but I'd just like to say that this isn't the most fucked up case in this respect - I've actually heard of a case where the guy was dead and she later had pre-fertilised embryos re-inserted.

"Who's my dad?"
"Your dad's dead, hon."
"When did he die, Mummy?"
"August 2000, dear."
"Mummy?"
"Yes?"
"Does that make a zombie child since I was born in 2002?"

Not sure why you think this is so strange, presuming he didn't withdraw consent before he died, it's not that different than any other post-mortem child. Just because someone's dead, doesn't mean you don't want the child.

Scots Taffer on 8/3/2006 at 04:09

If I'm recalling correctly - and sorry I didn't state this previously - I think the couple had split up before the guy died and she hadn't gone through with impregnation until that time. I just found it very odd and a little disembodying that a child can be created after the father was long since dead.