Missouri appeals court: Frozen embryos property, not people

[RVonse]

Here: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/16/missouri-appeals-court-frozen-embryos-property-not-people.html

It is an interesting case because on the one hand, the mother is 44 and will never have another opportunity to have more children. But OTOH she is getting divorced and the husband no doubt does not want to get hooked for child support. He is willing to let the embryos go for adoption though.

I can see both sides.

She was going to go to the Supreme Court but decided not to at the last minute. Was told by her lawyer she would probably lose and did not want to set the wrong precidence for all 50 states

 

[ZiprHead]

I seem to remember a similar situation being discussed here previously. Or maybe this is the same one further up the legal ladder.

 

[RavenSky]

The appellate court found that the embryos frozen since 2007 are marital property and not human beings with constitutional rights.

I found this sentence to be the most interesting part of the article. I will have to research the actual arguments used in the case to see how it fits in.

If nothing else, if this is actually a part of the appellate court ruling, it strengthens abortion rights a little bit.

ETA - this seems to be a 2016 case. ???

 

[RavenSky]

It sounds like at least part of McQueen's argument is that the embryos are already children that she should have custody of, and one of the judge's agreed with her:

But Judge James M. Dowd dissented, writing, “Missouri law makes one thing abundantly clear: The two embryos at issue in this case are human beings with protectable interests in life, health and well-being.”

He wrote that by creating the embryos, the litigants already had made the “reproductive decision.”

Dowd also said Missouri law does not provide for “marital property of a special character,” and he disagreed with the majority assessment that Gadberry’s rights outweighed those of the embryos.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_396ca794-e3d3-5166-9e29-485feff8e6d4.html

 

[RVonse]

She has definarely lost her case in Missouri now. As an aside, I think this will give successful employed women (she is a lawyer herself) a good look at the other side of fence when it comes to the fairness and equity of child support. Had it not been for that she would have prevailed I beleive.

There are quite a few on this board who dissagree with Derec about the fairness of child support in todays world. Except that Derec is right. Cases like this will be what it takes to get the pendulem going the other direction.

 

[J842P]

It sounds like at least part of McQueen's argument is that the embryos are already children that she should have custody of, and one of the judge's agreed with her:

But Judge James M. Dowd dissented, writing, “Missouri law makes one thing abundantly clear: The two embryos at issue in this case are human beings with protectable interests in life, health and well-being.”

He wrote that by creating the embryos, the litigants already had made the “reproductive decision.”

Dowd also said Missouri law does not provide for “marital property of a special character,” and he disagreed with the majority assessment that Gadberry’s rights outweighed those of the embryos.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_396ca794-e3d3-5166-9e29-485feff8e6d4.html

Yeah, this is the crux of so many issues, and it never really gets litigated as far as I can tell. Roe v. Wade is a cop-out, as I see it, though I am no legal scholar. But the issue seems to me to be very clearly whether or not an embryo, at the moment of conception, has rights and protections. Indeed, that is what the religious community claims, although, that is a puzzling and ahistorical position to take, as far as I have been able to find.

 

[J842P]

**delete**