As I was getting ready for Court this morning, there was a news item on the Today Show, regarding a couple's battle over what should happen to frozen embryos. The couple had created the embryos and right before the invitro fertilization procedure was to happen, the husband changed his mind. The couple has since been divorced and are arguing over what should happen with the embryos. The man believes that the embryos should be destroyed and the woman wants them so that she can bear a child. The case is still being appealed, and it may get all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States before a decision is made about what should happen with these embryos. The ex-wife is saying that she will absolve the man from any financial responsibility for the children, basically making him nothing more than a sperm donor. However, the man state's that if a child was born, he would want to be the father. On the surface this is a right to be a mother v. a right not to be a father debate. The issue for the ex-husband is that the couple is divorced and has a contentious relationship. He believes that his ex-wife has other options to have children and that it is not right to bring children into a very tumultuous world. I don't really know all the facts surrounding this case, but I tend to agree with the father's point from a strict best interest of the children standpoint. However, there is an underlying "moral" issue about when does life begin and are the embryos actually "potential life" which should not be destroyed? I will remain silent on that issue, but welcome any one's thoughts on the subject.
If you would like to watch the Today Show piece concerning the couple this blog is based upon, please see: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/18958324/