By Carolyn Gargaro
Rightgrrl Co-Founder
January 2, 1999
The most often heard argument from the pro-choice camp is that abortion is
a matter of a woman controlling what goes on with her body. The argument
goes on to explain that no government or person has a right to tell a
woman what to do with her body, and thus, no one, including the
government, has a right to outlaw abortion. Pro-choice advocates claim
that the fetus resides within the woman's body, and as such, the
elimination of the fetus falls under a woman's right to do what she wants
with her own body.
This rationale, however, doesn't flow with an October 1998 ruling made in
a New Jersey case involving frozen embryos.
A married couple, having trouble conceiving a child, underwent in vitro
fertilization (IVF). In this procedure, the woman's ovaries are stimulated
to release eggs, which are surgically removed and fertilized in a petri
dish by her husband's sperm. The cells of the fertilized egg begin to
multiply and an embryo develops, which is then implanted in the mother's
uterus. To those who believe that life begins at conception, this embryo
represents a genetically individual human being.
The fertilization of multiple eggs is common in IVF, and the "extra"
embryos are preserved for future possible use by a freezing
procedure called cryo-preservation. Such frozen embryos were at the center of this
particular dispute. After undergoing IVF, the woman discovered that she
was pregnant by natural intercourse, and she and her husband decided to
freeze the embryos for possible future use. After their child was born,
the marriage broke up, and the woman wanted the embryos destroyed because
she did not want to become a mother to any of the embryos and to have "her
DNA out there". The father wanted the embryos preserved to possibly have
them implanted in another woman or to give them to some other childless
couple.
The case was taken to court, and Judge Lee Laskin ruled that the frozen
embryos were to be destroyed because the wife has a "right not to become a
mother". He dismissed the husband's claim that the embryos were living
entities and stated that he would not spend time addressing this
"so-called right to life argument." Laskin went on to state that he had no
hesitation "in ruling that the frozen embryos are not living entities."
Laskin failed to provide any scientific reason for this judgement.
Pro-choice advocates in New Jersey supported the judge's decision and
hailed this as a ruling that upheld a woman's "reproductive freedom."
Obviously, there are many ethical questions regarding the frozen embryos.
To those who are pro-life, these embryos are more than merely experimental
material, but are individual human beings entitled to the most basic right
of all - the right to life. Destroying the embryos is considered
destroying human life at its earliest stages. Obviously, those who do not
believe in the human individuality of embryos will disagree, but the
thought of little frozen human individuals makes many people feel
uncomfortable. Even some people who are pro-choice and believe that frozen
embryos are not yet individuals have reservations about frozen embryos. As
one pro-choice friend said to me regarding this issue, "It just
seems....there is something wrong with having "human seeds" frozen.. those are
potential people...."
However, the immediate question that comes to my mind is, why does the
woman have more rights over the embryos than the husband? No one is asking
her to give birth or to take care of the babies - yet she suddenly has
sole rights over the embryos, and that includes the right to destroy them.
According to pro-choice advocates, the right to destroy your own offspring
is because the embryo/fetus resides within the mother's body, and the
elimination of the embryo/fetus falls under a woman's "right" to do what
she wants with "her body."
How are frozen embryos part of "her body"? The embryos are no more hers
than the husband's but now it seems that abortion rights extend past one's
body to the "right not to become a parent". So which is it? Is abortion a
matter of a woman controlling her own body or a matter of not wanting to
become a mother? According to the frozen embryo case, it isn't a matter of
it being a part of the woman's body - it is a matter of "not wanting to
become a biological parent." If the case was reversed and it was the man
who wanted the embryos destroyed and the woman who wanted them preserved,
would the judge still determine that he has a right "not to become a
father" and that the embryos could be destroyed against the wishes of the
woman? I doubt it. What if a man refused to pay child support because he
"didn't want to become a father"? What if he argued that the woman gave
birth against his wishes and his desire not to become a father made him
exempt from paying child support?
Would pro-choice women agree that a man has the right not to become a
father? If so, how would they suggest he exercise that right?
Pro-choice advocates and Laskin dismissed the "so-called right to life
argument" while utilizing a "so-called right to an abortion argument" to
justify the woman having sole rights over embryos which are half her
husband's and not residing in her body. As the pro-choice advocates in New
Jersey celebrated this ruling "in favor of a woman's reproductive freedom"
I had to wonder how they could so blatantly ignore the fact that they just
admitted that abortion rights are not just a matter of "controlling one's
own body" as they so claim. Will they be celebrating if men start
asserting their "right not to become a father"? Or has the desperate
desire for abortion-on-demand, no matter what the circumstance, clouded
their thinking?
Related Links:
This article copyright © 1999 by Carolyn Gargaro and may
not be reproduced in any form without the express written consent of its
author. All rights reserved.