3 ms·
> This is clearly an unsatisfactory situation for three key reasons: the woman wishing to be pregnant has been denied her chance of motherhood, the embryos have
by MayeulC 8y ago
> This is clearly an unsatisfactory situation for three key reasons: the woman wishing to be pregnant has been denied her chance of motherhood, the embryos have been destroyed and a considerable amount of money has been wasted.
This whole argument shocked me. I don't know if the author follows a logical fallacy, or something else is at play, but first of all, I fail to recognize how an embryo would be part of your own body. Secondly, I really have issues following her argumentation that consent from her then-partner isn't needed to transfer and make use of the embryos.
The article then goes on to argue that very position, which seems to be a bit out of place. I don't really follow the arguments that:
> Biologically, a man’s role is limited to the act of fertilisation and from that moment onwards, the woman bears the burden of gestation through to labour and child birth. Conferring ownership of the embryo to the woman could go some way to address this imbalance.
Given that for IVF, a woman's contribution to an embryo is exactly the same as a man's (one gamete), and the burden of gestation hasn't taken place.
- justtopost 8y agoGiven that it is not an independent entity, it is no different than a tumor other than its division properties. You can take the argument either way. Please leave your idealogical biases at home.
- MayeulC 8y agoWell, I did try to leave any kind of bias aside, so my apologies if I didn't succeed. I hope I didn't misunderstand you, but > it is not an independent entity This really is debatable, depending on the term "entity". Given that this is in-vitro fertilization, an embryo here is likely a couple dozen cells grown from two gametes, in a test tube. It is physically distinct from the parents. My remark was going in the same direction as yours. What "schocked" me is that some parts of the linked article read as though the author forced an ideology/views upon the reader. I was expecting to get raw facts from this article, so that surprised me a bit. Regardless of what I think of the author's viewpoint (which I didn't state, by the way), I expressed having trouble logically following the arguments that are being used there, and suspected that it might be due to a logical fallacy the author could have been leaning on to close the reasoning gaps (and if that was the case, I was curious to know which). But I admit it could also be an issue on my side.