Today's twitter was especially interesting, I think because we covered so many different topics in one class period. The most pertinent and interesting conversations were on the use of contracts and the use of foetal tissue for a preacher's child. In case 1, where the couple had signed 7 contracts saying the wife would have the right to use the frozen embryos was especially interesting because the contracts were thrown out of the picture in comparison to the husband's right not to reproduce. Contracts should be enforced at the embryo freezing clinics, but there should be a preface to the clients that tells them how the contracts cannot defy one's rights to reproduce/not to reproduce, as seen by all the case laws that have considered them null. After all, the contract cannot replace the possibility that the client may change his/her mind of deciding to/not to reproduce at a later time in their future. If these more complicated cases come up, it is fair that their rights be reviewed as higher in priority than the contracts signed x number of years before. But why make contracts then? As we said in class, if extraneous circumstances arise, like the death of a parent or a major court dispute, the contract can stand in as a benchmark of the client's intent at that point in time, either validating or invalidating their court case. Because of this, the more detailed the contract, the better, but the client's overall basic rights will trump if the debacle is between those who signed the contract.
The other interesting aspect of the class involved more religious undertones, so it ended up coming out more in the twitter conversations. In general it appeared as if the class was torn on the fact that the preacher and his wife decided to take the foetal tissue instead of regarding the thoughts of their parish in higher degree than their own desires. Does using foetal tissue to save your child mean that you are indirectly supporting abortion? This is the line that most of the class disagreed on. I believe that by using the tissues, you are not supporting abortion, but rather saving a life by using another's life. This is walking on a very thin line though-- if women choosing abortion knew that their actions may be used to save another's child, I bet you these women would be so happy and relieved, and their emotional pain and guilt would be alleviated to some extent. This indirectly may be helping the case for abortion, as it does not make the women feel the full extent of the guilt if their actions were merely murdur. In somewhat teh same way, a person's death is not as bad if their organs were able to save others. The death was seen as a donation, sort of, and on the surface that is what this case was dealing with.
My cases were 4+5, so we'll see how those go on Thursday!
You ask "Does using fetal tissue to save your child imply that you indirectly support abortion?" In my opinion, yes. The tissue was obtained through murder, so it cannot be justified as "okay" because it is now being used "for life". Had the tissue been obtained through a miscarriage (spontaneous abortion), I would find less concern.
ReplyDeleteIn a sense, this illustrates a form of "organ donation" except that in organ donation, the donor is dead by natural means, not through murder (ie. abortion). I appreciate your optimism that a woman choosing abortion might feel her guilt alleviated since her dead baby's tissue could potentially be helping someone else. But this is a macabre thought and honestly could open up a black market for aborted tissue.