This dilemma is about a modern family dispute—one that involves a pair of frozen female embryos, an unmarried couple who have separated, a signed contract, and an angry ex-boyfriend who is suing the woman for the right to unfreeze the two embryos and bring them to term. The one-time couple created the embryos in an IVF clinic and had them frozen for later use. A contract had been signed with the stipulation that the embryos could only be brought to term if both partners agreed. However, the man argues that the contract is void because it did not specify what was to happen if they broke up. As a Catholic, it is his view that the embryos are his unborn children and he offers to take all the parenting responsibility and costs if the woman will let him have them. He insists that "We created these embryos for the purpose of life" and that they should not "sit in a freezer until the end of time." 

 

1)Is this a legal case about the validity of a contract? Is this a debate about when "personhood" starts? Is this about forcing his ex-girlfriend to have kids she does not want with a man she does not want to be with? Does it matter in your decision that the man can have other children?

2)Would you feel different if the woman wanted to bring the embryos to term but the man did not?

1. Yes. But instead of contract validity issue on the basis of the absence of specifics on what was to happen if the couple breaks up, the major issue here is medical or bioethics. And when talking about ethics, there is no clear delineation between right and wrong. What must be kept in mind are the principles of bioethics which are: 

A. Autonomy

B. Beneficence

C. Nonmaleficence (Do no harm)

D. Justice

Yes, the matter of when "personhood" starts is a factor. Having kids is an issue especially when it is forced. And the ability of the man to have other children would affect the results of this debate.

2. No. Whether it is the girlfriend or the man that gives/ withholds consent, bioethics principles must still be applied to all involved party, including the unborn child.

Step-by-step explanation

Prior to signing the contract, bioethical issues should have already been discussed and agreed upon. First and foremost, if ever the embryo is brought to term, a woman must carry it. 

Assuming it is the girlfriend that will carry it. She has every right to refuse because of the bioethical principle of Autonomy. She must be made to understand all the benefits, risks, responsibilities that pregnancy and parenthood would entail and she must be the one to come into a decision regarding this matter. She has the right to do whatever she pleases with her person. 

Next is the issue of when "personhood starts". This is a debate that is still not answered up to this time. However, for this case, if ever the embryo is brought to term, he/she is still not capable of deciding for himself/herself, thus the principle of autonomy is less likely the issue here. This is an issue that tackles more on the principles of Beneficence and Non-Maleficence (Do No Harm) both for the embryo and the mother. If brought to term, would this baby/child benefit from a single parent family? What would be the effect of knowing that he/she is born because of a cultural belief and not because both parents desired for his/her existence? Are the benefits of being born and growing up in this world greater than the risk of growing up in a possibly dysfunctional family (growth, developmental, and psychological problems)?  For the mother, what are the benefits of pregnancy and motherhood? Are the benefits greater than risks (physical and psychological trauma, etc)?  

Another issue is the man offering to raise and provide for the child alone. Parenthood is not a "dibs" kind of arrangement. It is a shared responsibility for both mother and father. Every member of a family has a role to play regardless of whether the parents are together or not. It is just for both parents to share the responsibility of caring for a child brought by their union as long as they are able.

The man being able to father children would help in making a decision because with proper education, he can be made to understand that although cultural beliefs are important, it is not enough to impose the responsibility of pregnancy, nurturing a life, and parenthood on a person who does not give consent (girlfriend). 

Whether the woman consents and the man does not. The principles of Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-maleficence, and Justice must be applied to all parties involved if possible. Thus, whether one party consents or does not, if it violates the principles, all factors must be considered and reviewed before a decision is made. If for example, in this case, the woman and man are separated but the woman wanted to bring the embryo to term, factors such as "would pregnancy by herself be harmful to the woman?", "How would the man/woman be affected knowing he is a father/mother to a child he did not want?" "How would this affect the finances, priorities, and the person physically, emotionally, psychologically, and as a person as a whole?", "what's the effect to the unborn child?", "Would it affect him/her as he/she grows into him/her own person?" 

That is why, counseling is a must and is usually done for IVF's. IVFs are done only after rigorous and extensive education of parties involved, and when deemed by experts such as physicians, psychiatrists, counsellors, and lawyers that both parties are ready and all issues are covered, such as, medical, ethics and legal aspects.