So the Supreme Court has finally made a decision in the case of the frozen embryos. They’re not covered by the constitution. They aren’t people. They aren’t entitled to protection.
Mary Roche has lost her action in which she sought to have three frozen embryos implanted against the wishes of Thomas Roche, her estranged husband. Three of the original fertilised embryos were implanted and a child was subsequently born, while the remaining three were frozen.
One part of Mary Roche’s argument was that Thomas Roche had signed a binding legal agreement that the frozen embryos could be implanted in the future, even though the couple separated shortly after their child was born. But another part of her case was that the remaining embryos are the Unborn, as specified in the constitution, with a right to life.
The judges decided otherwise, but imagine. It took three years of legal argument, all the way to the Supreme Court at enormous expense, to figure out what anyone with half a brain could tell you if you asked them.
This is not a person:
It isn’t rocket science. It isn’t even molecular science. It’s staring you in the face.
Of course, now we’ll have our periodic national convulsion, in which the country becomes polarised for several months until it all settles down again. We’ll have people who genuinely believe an 8-cell zygote is human arguing it out with those who think you might just as easily claim that a flake of dandruff is human. And then, naturally, we’ll have the monster raving loony religious crowd who have no position at all except Damn You in Hellfire!!!
Unfortunately for them, their friends the clergy are somewhat distracted as a result of getting caught raping children and they won’t be in a position to help with public statements on morality.
At least this time we have no referendum to contend with, but the case shows up once again what a lamentable, spineless bunch of invertebrates we have running the country. Rather than legislate, which is why they were elected, our politicians chose to run scared from the backwoodsmen, and leave the law-making on fertility treatment to the Supreme Court.
On a personal level, the two people at the centre of the case, Mary and Thomas Roche, would not have been dragged as far as the Supreme Court if there was clear legislation in place. Likewise, however, on a personal level, there’s something very sad about a man and woman fighting over a thing like this.
The court decided that Thomas Roche could not be compelled to become a parent if he didn’t wish to, while Mary Roche went through the original in vitro process – a traumatic experience – and is possibly not in a position to repeat it.
I have sympathy for both people involved, but it seems to me that this case was based on one thing only: Mary Roche’s desire to have another child, and while I might feel sympathetic to that wish, in the end that’s all it is. A wish.
There’s no absolute right to have a child.