The couple signed, shortly after their wedding, an agreement that allowed him to insist on destruction of the embryos, if they divorced.
They divorced three years later.
Now, the ex-husband, Stephen Findley, wants the embryos destroyed.
“I believed that (the terms) were binding between me and UCSF and Mimi [his ex-wife],” Findley, a financial analyst, said of the agreement he and Mimi Lee signed with UC San Francisco less than a month after their wedding ceremony in September 2010
The ex wife, now 46 and infertile after successful cancer treatment, is objecting to the destruction demand, saying the eggs represent her last chance to bear a biological child.
There are more details on the case here.
I asked Professor Walter Block to comment on the case from his libertarian perspective. He responded:
Embryos, whether frozen or not, are very small human beings. Destroying them is murder. In my view, human life starts with the fertilized egg. The sperm alone, the egg alone, will not develop into a human being, no matter what environment they are place in. But the fertilized egg will. The ex husband is entirely in the wrong here, the court should uphold the ex wife's position. I have written a lot about this. For those interested in my views on evictionism (the libertarian compromise between the pro life and the pro choice positions), read here (I intend to come out with a book on this issue in future):
Walter E. Block ’s publications and speeches on abortion, pro life, pro choice, evictionism, followed by critiques of his views, followed by his responses to these critiques:
Block, 1977, 1978, 2001, 2004, 2008, 2010A, 2011, 2012, 2014A, 2014B; Block and Whitehead, 2005; Dyke and Block, 2011
Block, Walter E. 1977. “Toward a Libertarian Theory of Abortion.” The Libertarian Forum. Vol. 10, No. 9, September, pp. 6-8; http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1977/1977_09.pdf
Block, Walter E. Undated (1997?). “L’Aborto: Una Legittima Difesa,” Claustrofobia, anno 1, n. 3, pp. 16-22.
Block, Walter E. 1978. “Abortion, Woman and Fetus: Rights in Conflict?” Reason, Vol. 9, No. 12, April, pp. 18-25.
Block, Walter E. 2001. “Stem Cell Research: The Libertarian Compromise.” September 3;http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block5.html
Block, Walter E. 2004. “Libertarianism, Positive Obligations and Property Abandonment: Children’s Rights,” International Journal of Social Economics; Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 275-286; http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContainer.do? containerType=Issue& containerId=18709; http://www.walterblock.com/wp- content/uploads/publications/ block-children.pdf
Block, Walter E. 2008. “Homesteading, ad coelum, owning views and forestalling.” The Social Sciences. Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 96-103; http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1890872
Block, Walter E. 2014A. “Evictionism and Libertarianism.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 290-294; http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/04/27/jmp. jhu012.full?keytype=ref&ijkey= 3n1zc8zcBRnT586;
http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jhu012?ijkey= 3n1zc8zcBRnT586&keytype=ref
Block, Walter E. 2010B. “A libertarian perspective on the stem cell debate: compromising the uncompromisible,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. Vol. 35: 429-448;
http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/jhq033?
ijkey=oczT7ytzmoAD1cz&keytype=ref; http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/ cgi/reprint/jhq033?ijkey= oczT7ytzmoAD1cz&keytype=ref ; http://wipimd.com/?&sttflpg= 78eaf87fd81ebaaa7a245cca600b15 bba8497c2cfbf1284c08a0260ba068 d4ad&cmpgp0811Ueh016= ICD20811TEH0PkRLpL1IF; http://wipimd.com/?&sttflpg= 4b842f7f4697bce38422e0bfe03e6c cad53070377a9303d5#JAL1
Block, Walter E. 2011A. “Terri Schiavo: A Libertarian Analysis” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Vol. 22, pp. 527–536; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_26.pdf; http://libertycrier.com/ walter-block-terri-schiavo/? utm_source=feedburner&utm_ medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed% 3A+LibertyCrier+%28Liberty+ Crier%29
Block, Walter E. 2013. “Toward a libertarian theory of evictionism,” Journal of Family and Economic Issues. June;http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10834-013- 9361-4
Block, Walter E. 2014A. “Should abortion be criminalized? Rejoinder to Akers, Davies and Shaffer on Abortion” Management Education Science Technology (MEST) Journal. Vol. 2, No. 1, January, pp. 33-44;http://fbim.meste.org/FBIM_1_2014/Sadrzaj_eng.html; http://fbim.meste.org/FBIM_1_ 2014/_04.pdf
Block, Walter E. and Roy Whitehead. 2005. “Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private Property Rights Approach to Resolving the Abortion Controversy,” Appalachian Law Review, 4 (2) 1-45;http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block-whitehead_ abortion-2005.pdf; http://www.walterblock.com/wp- content/uploads/publications/ block-whitehead_abortion-2005. pdf; https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/228125532_ Compromising_the_ Uncompromisable_A_Private_ Property_Rights_Approach_to_ Resolving_the_Abortion_ Controversy?ev=prf_pub
Dyke, Jeremiah and Walter E. Block. 2011. “Explorations in Property Rights: Conjoined Twins.” Libertarian Papers, Vol. 3, Art. 38; http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/38-dyke-block-conjoined- twins/
Block, Walter E. 2012. “A Not So Funny Thing Happened to Me in Tampa.” August 30;http://lewrockwell.com/block/block208.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNTAmwUHcLM
http://conza.tumblr.com/tagged/evictionism
http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/jhq033?
ijkey=oczT7ytzmoAD1cz&keytype=ref; http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/ cgi/reprint/jhq033?ijkey= oczT7ytzmoAD1cz&keytype=ref
Critics of evictionism:
Akers, 2012A, 2012B, Davies, 2012; Parr, 2011; Shaffer, 2012; Wisniewski, 2010A, 2010B, 2011, 2013.
Akers, Becky. 2012A. “Not My Definition — or Webster's Either — of 'Trespassing'” September 6;http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/120226. html
Akers, Becky. 2012B. “What if the 'Fetus' Could Shoot Back?” September 12; http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/120728. html
Davies, Jim. 2012. “Abortion.” September 24;
http://strike-the-root.com/abortion
Parr, Sean. 2011. “Departurism and the Libertarian Axiom of Gentleness.” Libertarian Papers, Vol. 3, No. 34,http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2011/lp-3-34.doc
Shaffer, Butler. 2012. “Of Children and Fetuses” September 17;
http://lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer259.html
Wisniewski, Jakub Bozydar. 2010A. “A Critique of Block on Abortion and Child Abandonment.” Libertarian Papers Vol. 2, No. 16; http://libertarianpapers.org/2010/16-wisniewski-block-on- abortion/
Wisniewski, Jakub Bozydar. 2010B. “Rejoinder to Block’s Defense of Evictionism.” Libertarian Papers. Vol. 2, Art No. 27; http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2010/lp-2-37.pdf
Wisniewski, Jakub Bozydar. 2011. “Response to Block on Abortion, Round Three.”
http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/6-winiewski-response-to- block-on-abortion-round-three/ ;http://libertarianpapers.org/ articles/2011/lp-3-6.pdf
Wisniewski, Jakub Bozydar. 2013. “Abortion, Libertarianism and Evictionism: A Last Word.” Libertarian Papers, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 153-162; http://libertarianpapers.org/2013/6-wisniewski-abortion- libertarianism-and- evictionism/
Presley, Sharon and Robert Cooke (aka Morgan Edwards). 1979. “The right to abortion: a libertarian defense.” Association of libertarian feminists discussion paper
http://www.alf.org/abortion.php
Block responds to critics:
Block, 2010A, 2010B, 2011A, 2011B, 2011C, 2014
Block, Walter E. 2010A. “Objections to the Libertarian Stem Cell Compromise,” Libertarian Papers 2, 34;http://libertarianpapers.org/2010/34-block-objections-to- the-libertarian-stem-cell- compromise/
Block, Walter E. 2010B. “Rejoinder to Wisniewski on Abortion.” Libertarian Papers; Vol. 32, No. 2;http://libertarianpapers.org/2010/32-block-rejoinder-to- wisniewski-on-abortion/; http://libertarianpapers.org/ articles/2010/lp-2-32.pdf
Block, Walter E. 2011A. “Response to Wisniewski on Abortion, Round Two.” Libertarian Papers; Vol. 3, Article No. 4; http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/4-block-response-to- wisniewski-on-abortion-round- two/
Block, Walter E. 2011B. “Response to Wisniewski on Abortion, Round Three.” Libertarian Papers, Vol. 3, Art. 37;http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/37-block-response-to- wisniewski-on-abortion/
Block, Walter E. 2014. “Response to Wisniewski on Abortion, Round Four.” Management Education Science Technology Journal (MEST); http://mest.meste.org/MEST_Najava/V_Block.pdf;
http://www.mest.meste.org/MEST_2_2014/K1_eng.html;
http://www.fbim.meste.org/FBIM_2_2014/Sadrzaj_eng.html
Block, Walter E. 2011C. “Evictionism is libertarian; departurism is not: critical comment on Parr.” Vol. 3, Article 36, Libertarian Papers;
http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/36-evictionism-is- libertarian-departurism-is- not-critical-comment-on-parr/
Block, Walter E. 2013. “Rejoinder to Parr on Evictionism and Departurism” Journal of Peace, Prosperity & Freedom, Vol. 2, pp. 125-138; http://jppfaustralia.weebly.com/current-issue.html; http://jppfaustralia.weebly. com/uploads/1/4/5/5/14558572/ journalpeaceprosperityfreedom_ single.pdf
Block, Walter E. 2014. “Should abortion be criminalized? Rejoinder to Akers, Davies and Shaffer on Abortion” Management Education Science Technology (MEST) Journal. Vol. 2, No. 1, January, pp. 33-44;http://fbim.meste.org/FBIM_1_2014/Sadrzaj_eng.html; http://fbim.meste.org/FBIM_1_ 2014/_04.pdf
Forestalling: forestall:
*
Block, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2010A, 2010B, 2011; Block and Whitehead, 2005; Epstein vs Block, 2005
Block, Walter E. 2001. “Stem Cell Research: The Libertarian Compromise.” September 3;http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block5.html
Block, Walter E. 2003. “Libertarianism vs. Objectivism; A Response to Peter Schwartz,” Reason Papers, Vol. 26, Summer, pp. 39-62; http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/26/rp_26_4.pdf Nambla, child sexuality, child abuse
Block, Walter E. 2004. “Libertarianism, Positive Obligations and Property Abandonment: Children’s Rights,” International Journal of Social Economics; Vol. 31, No. 3, pp 275-286; http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContainer.do? containerType=Issue& containerId=18709; http://www.walterblock.com/wp- content/uploads/publications/ block-children.pdf
Block, Walter E. 2008. “Homesteading, ad coelum, owning views and forestalling.” The Social Sciences. Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 96-103; http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1890872
Block, Walter E. 2010A. “A libertarian perspective on the stem cell debate: compromising the uncompromisible,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. Vol. 2
http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/jhq033?
ijkey=oczT7ytzmoAD1cz&keytype=ref; http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/ cgi/reprint/jhq033?ijkey= oczT7ytzmoAD1cz&keytype=ref
Block, Walter E. 2010B. “Van Dun on Freedom and Property: A Critique” Libertarian Papers; Vol. 2, No. 4;http://libertarianpapers.org/2010/4-block-van-dun-on- freedom-and-property/
Block, Walter E. 2011. “Terri Schiavo: A Libertarian Analysis” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Vol. 22, pp. 527–536;http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_26.pdf; http://libertycrier.com/ walter-block-terri-schiavo/? utm_source=feedburner&utm_ medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed% 3A+LibertyCrier+%28Liberty+ Crier%29
Block, Walter E. and Roy Whitehead. 2005. “Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private Property Rights Approach to Resolving the Abortion Controversy,” Appalachian Law Review, 4 (2) 1-45;http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block-whitehead_ abortion-2005.pdf; http://www.walterblock.com/wp- content/uploads/publications/ block-whitehead_abortion-2005. pdf; https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/228125532_ Compromising_the_ Uncompromisable_A_Private_ Property_Rights_Approach_to_ Resolving_the_Abortion_ Controversy?ev=prf_pub
Epstein, Richard vs. Walter E. Block, 2005. “Debate on Eminent Domain.” NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 1144-1169
http://www.nyujll.org/articles/Vol.%201%20No.%203/ Vol.%201%20No.%203%20-% 20Block%20and%20Epstein.pdf
Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
-RW
Things like this muddy the waters, but lead to lively revision.
ReplyDeleteI would, based on my understanding of libertarianism and contract law, side with the dad. If the pre-nup says that in the event of divorce these unviable living beings cannot be used for research or implantation without the consent of both parties, he should win.
All future pre-nup agreements will include language similar in the near future, to avoid these cases.
Another example of how private law and contract can help clarify "God given moral law" and value-free "contract law" w/r/t abortion.
Yes, they are alive, but as joint property they can only be transferred/used/implanted if BOTH parties agree.
This is a great example of how private law works.
If an embryo is alive, as Block suggests, then the embryo should be one of the contracting parties and isn't in this case. Yes, the couple have a binding contract but they can't enforce it against the embryo.
DeleteThe man is right. First of all, calling the fertilized egg a human being is a matter of opinion. When not just the man, but the woman as well, voluntarily signs the agreement that either could order the embryos destroyed, each party is indicating what his opinion was. In writing. In advance. The opinion being the fertilized egg is not a human being and is subject to destruction. Thus private law is written.
ReplyDeleteNow, later, the mom wants to renege on her agreement for personal reasons. No way.
Block also contradicts his own theory of evictionism. Even with a carried embryo considered a human being, Block explicitly permits a woman to evict that embryo from her body. That the death of the embryo may result is secondary to her property right in her own body. Even if the man objects, the woman may evict the embryo to see it die. If the embryo has no right to _stay_ implanted, how can it have a right to _be_ implanted? It doesn't.
Moreover the decision to implant is spelled out in the agreement to require mutual consent by the man and the woman. Even if destruction is morally forbidden, essentially the man could simply withhold his consent to implant forever and discontinue paying the freezer bills (his own form of "evicitionism"). There is nothing the woman can do about that, just because she doesn't like the terms of what she agreed to.