AZ State Govt: We’ll give your embryos to strangers.

[Paratus]

Happy days for pro-lifers in AZ. If you don’t use your IVF embryos and get in a dispute about it the state will take them and give them to some stranger who will.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...es-thinking-about-in-vitro-fertilization.html

The case that inspired the Arizona law centers on Ruby Torres and John Joseph Terrell, who created seven embryos before Torres went through cancer treatment. Later, during the couple’s divorce proceedings, she said she wanted to keep the embryos for possible use since she probably couldn’t get pregnant without them. Terrell said didn’t want his genetic material to be involved in Torres’ hypothetical pregnancy at all. An Arizona Superior Court judge ruled that Torres couldn’t make a baby with the embryos without Terrell’s consent. But, the judge added, the embryos shouldn’t be destroyed—they must be donated, offered up to infertile people who can’t make embryos themselves.

From the pro-life perspective, this is the second-best outcome: The woman who wants to bring the embryos to life doesn’t get to keep them, but they still stand a chance of becoming children. For pro-choice observers, however, it’s a disturbing decision. Why should a stranger have the right to use Torres and Terrell’s embryos when neither of them approved that option? If Terrell’s argument was compelling enough for the judge to deny Torres possession of the embryos, why wasn’t it enough to keep the embryos out of a mass donation bin, forcing him to have biological children he still doesn’t want?

As far as idiotic pro-life laws go I like this one. Normally it’s the woman who bears the brunt pro-life law but here both sides are subservient to the state.

Are you a man who used IVF but now doesn’t want anymore biological kids? To bad! The state is giving them away, maybe to a liberal minority trans couple or maybe a white suprmacist Nazi couple. You don’t get a say!

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I am at a loss for words on this one. Fuck that and fuck the GOP

 

[sandorski]

Obviously there are not enough adoptive Kids already. Let's add Embryos to the mix!

 

[Paratus]

Obviously there are not enough adoptive Kids already. Let's add Embryos to the mix!

Embryos are kids.

/s

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Are they changing the child support laws? Could a family find themselves being sued to money to support a child they did not agree to have brought to term?

Again, fuck the GOP.

 

[Paratus]

Are they changing the child support laws? Could a family find themselves being sued to money to support a child they did not agree to have brought to term?

Again, fuck the GOP.

There’s was supposedly financial protection put in for the parties who do not get the embryos.

The Torres–Terrell decision prompted a Republican Arizona legislator to write the law that took effect this month. As the Washington Post explains, state Sen. Nancy Barto put forward what she believed to be a compromise solution, one that gives embryos to aspiring parents like Ruby Torres but stipulates that the party that doesn’t get the embryos will not have to provide financial support for any resulting children.

Although from this article I’m not sure if it was included.

 

[senseamp]

GOP needs more kids to take benefits away from?

 

[Darwin333]

Wow, so now both the biological mother and father can be hit with child support for a kid(s) they didn't want to be brought into the world.

 

[Thump553]

This a[[ears to be a trial court decision, and thus of no precedential value anywhere except in that judge's courtroom. There are lots of erroneous decisions made by trial court judges-that's why we have appeals courts.

 

[Greenman]

I thought embryos were just a clump of disposable cells? I'm sure I've read that here. They aren't humans, they have no rights. It seems like a straight up property ownership issue to me.

 

[Paratus]

Wow, so now both the biological mother and father can be hit with child support for a kid(s) they didn't want to be brought into the world.

As I said above it looked like they tried to add financial protection for the party that does not get the embryo but it wasn’t clear from the article if it made it in.

This a[[ears to be a trial court decision, and thus of no precedential value anywhere except in that judge's courtroom. There are lots of erroneous decisions made by trial court judges-that's why we have appeals courts.

According to the article I quoted they based the AZ law off this court case.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I thought embryos were just a clump of disposable cells? I'm sure I've read that here. They aren't humans, they have no rights. It seems like a straight up property ownership issue to me.

You understand it perfectly. thwy Are the property of the two individuals who provide do the cells to create them. They have no rights. The owners do as with any property.

What did you think you were making some kind of deep analogy?

 

[Greenman]

You understand it perfectly. thwy Are the property of the two individuals who provide do the cells to create them. They have no rights. The owners do as with any property.

What did you think you were making some kind of deep analogy?

No, I thought I was saying it's a property rights issue.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I see both sides to this.

1) I've been through and done the IVF stuff... That shit is EXPENSIVE as fuck. You liberals should be cheering this - especially if it saves the poor money by allowing them to "adopt" one of the embryos. I also know it's expensive for them to hold/freeze your embryos - So if you can't (or don't) pay the bill for them to continuously freeze your eggs (typically an annual fee), they will either throw them out or donate them to research I believe. They made us fill out a form for this.

2) I also see that it is YOUR property, from YOUR body, why should the state ever have access to what is yours?

I don't believe there is a way for me to withdraw our embryos out of their labs and hold them at home or anything, so it isn't exactly property that we can personally hold onto.