
When the Government Seizes Your Embryos - Anon84
https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/when-the-government-seizes-your-embryos
======
victoro0
If the laws are good, if I agree with the means and the ends, then I do not
mind the wrong people defending it, or for the wrong reasons.

So let's all sustain for a second our disbelief and ignore all the value
judgments, governments and churches involved. The crux of the issue is that
the law changed to require that artificial insemination be available only to
couples.

In my own country it seems adoption is also only available to couples (either
legally or de facto), and it is near impossible for a father to win a custody
case when divorcing.

I think the wider trend here is prioritizing some ideal of what would be the
best outcome for the (future) child and most of society believing a single
parent would not do as good a job as a couple, on a significant averages
comparison, and that men are inferior child rears as well.

I don't know if it is true, but living in a democracy means common wisdom,
anecdotes and tradition bend scientific and informed decisions.

~~~
emiliobumachar
Let's not summarize too much.

The crux of the issue is that the law changed to require that artificial
insemination be available only to _straight_ couples.

------
MyHypatia
I find it chilling that a government can force the donation of your genetic
material "for the greater good". Unless we explicitly consent to our genetic
material being used in a certain way (i.e. donating eggs or sperm) it's
terrifying to think that we can essentially be forced to.

Also, see the case where parents got permission to use their dead son's sperm
to create a grandchild. Presumably the parents picked the partner to conceive
the grandchild.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/nyregion/west-point-
cadet...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/nyregion/west-point-cadet-sperm-
grandchild.html)

~~~
tathougies
My daughter should not be treated under the law as 'my genetic material'.
Firstly, she is not just my genetic material, she is her mothers too.
Secondly, she has her own genetic makeup being the product of two people.
Thirdly, as a result of her conception and the fact that she is different
genetically from both her mother and father and the fact that her interests as
a living thing are not identical to her mother and fathers, she is actually a
separate person, and thus my property rights over my DNA (if they exist)
certainly ought not to affect how the law treats her best interests as a
minor. Due to virtue of having separate interests, the law should primarily
focus on her interests, and in certain cases, it would be appropriate to
subsume my interests as her father (or her mother's interests) in order to
best serve hers. This is not a novel application of law. The law exists in
part to protect those who cannot speak for themselves, people such as minor
children and the disabled. In these cases, the law infers their interests.

The same can be said of the children in question, who are not simply the
property of the female lawyer. Although they share her DNA, simply sharing DNA
does not give her the right to do with them as she pleases, just as my mother
does not have rights over me (and neither does my father of course). Under
this framework, no one is telling the lawyer what to do with her genes. They
are telling her how she is to interact with other people, who in this case,
happen to be her children and the children of whichever men fathered them.

~~~
MyHypatia
In the case of the female lawyer, the government is deciding that it is better
for the embryo to be implanted in a genetically unrelated woman because she
has a partner, rather than the mother of the embryo herself. If you believe
that an embryo should be treated as an individual, how is this different than
forcing a single mother to give up custody of her child to be raised by
strangers? What has the mother done to lose the right to raise her own child?
Should single mothers lose custody of their children, since being raised by
two parents is preferable? If not, why is okay for her to lose custody of her
embryo?

In the case of the West Point cadet, they took his sperm and created an embryo
after he died. He didn't explicitly consent to an embryo being created at all.

~~~
tathougies
So I actually disagree with the Polish government here, but not on the grounds
that a government should not be able to set policy in this area, but rather I
think the policy they set is wrong.

~~~
MyHypatia
I also think a government should be able to create policy in this area. What's
horrifying is that the government has deemed it morally preferable to assign
custody to strangers over the mother. Losing custody is usually due to things
like neglect, child endangerment, drug use... now simply "being single" can be
added to the list.

When two people who may disagree on the personhood status of an embryo can
agree that this policy is bad. It must be a pretty terrible policy.

~~~
tathougies
I don't object to the single mother part. I object to the adoption part of
already created embryos. I don't think it's a bad idea to prevent the
systematic creation of children alienates from one of their parents

------
notadoc
Why is the Vatican opposed to IVF? Is it general, or situational?

~~~
grotsnot
FTA: "Many Catholics object to the fact that embryos are routinely discarded
during the IVF process"

~~~
tathougies
The Church also objects to the creation of the embryos even if none are
discarded, and all are implanted and brought to term by the mother. You are
citing an objection to abortion, but the Church is also against the creation
of the embryos to begin with.

