OK, South Dakota makes it's stand against abortion because life begins at conception. In France, The European Courts of Human Rights has ruled that Natalie Evans can't keep her frozen embryos by an ex-fiance and they must be destroyed. Hello? Where are all the self-righteous pro-lifers? The articles is here. There's another good article here.
Basically, Ms. Evans had cancer and they had to remove her ovaries. She and her then-fiance fertilized her eggs and had them frozen. But they broke up and the ex has decided he doesn't want to be a daddy and withrew his consent for her to use them.
Maybe the right-to-lifers don't care because this happened in another country? Hasn't stopped them before. Baptisits make it part of their calling to go to other countries to get them to change their ways to Christian values.
Maybe they don't feel like they can fight British law: under British law an embryo does not have independent rights or interests. Interesting. I wonder, do we have a law like that? Is fertilization not the same as conception? Is it only life if it's in a womb?
Or maybe it's because it's ok for a man to have a say about when he has children, but it's not ok for a woman? In the article, the ex is quoted, “The key thing for me was just to be able to decide when and if I start a family. So, that's been the basis for it,” he told journalists in Cheltenham, England. Yikes! Why does his say over-rule hers?
The article for the The Globe and Mail said that they were asking the embryos not be destroyed in case Evans can think of something else, but the article in my paper said they were going to be destroyed.
Again, where is the outrage?
1 comment:
"Or maybe it's because it's ok for a man to have a say about when he has children, but it's not ok for a woman?"
dingdingdingding .. we have a winner!
Post a Comment