Persons or property? Privacy or responsibility?

Persons or property? Privacy or responsibility?

Sorry it’s been so long since we’ve put much out here, mostly because we have been working on getting a new website up and lots of other things…which we will be updating you on here soon. That said, I ran across this story that someone posted on Facebook and the response it elicited in me got long enough that I thought I’d just go ahead and post it here. So here goes…

Stop me if you’ve heard this before…

Frozen Embryos Are Property, Not People, Rules Missouri Court “. To spark your memory, maybe change “frozen embryos” to “negroesand “Missouri Court” to “US Supreme Court.” Yep, two appellate judges have taken it upon themselves to once again overrule the Creator of the universe and science to determine that people are not persons. Just property. Never mind the blatant ridiculousness of this on its face, but as the wise and lone dissenting judge, Judge James M. Dowd, says, they even violate MISSOURI LAWGet that? They just don’t care anymore!

OK, I know I rushed into this without a lot of, or any for that matter, explanation. Let me try and set the stage (the link to the story is below)…a couple with infertility issues goes through IVF and successfully have twins. They are left with two frozen babies that they don’t immediately implant. At some point they must have been having some problems because they agree that if they separate, she gets the babies. Shortly thereafter they divorce and he changes his mind because, “…to require Justin to have children with his ex-wife against his wishes would violate his fundamental constitutional rights…” OY! BUT, at least he “would be open to donating them to research or an infertile couple, or having them destroyed.” Well, one out of three ain’t bad, cause two of those equals death! WOW! What a dad!

Now this brings me to the following quote:

“The right of personal privacy extends to intimate activities and decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception and family relationships,” (Appeals Judge Robert M.) Clayton (III) wrote.

Does this set off your “are you sure you want to apply this to all situations” alarms too?! Does this mean that the liberals are going to be for men forcing women to have an abortion if he decides he doesn’t want to be a dad? So much for protecting women! Does this mean they will be OK when dear old dad just walks away and says “my right to privacy says I can choose to no longer provide for my family“? I know that we have this happening in a practical sense now, but this is an insane statement! How on earth did we get here? Is this them just saying “this is really what we believe and you either don’t seem to be willing or able to stop us, so here you go!”?

Lots of questions…sadly, I think we might know the answers, at least to some of them. The most important one, and the one you must answer for yourself, is What are YOU going to do about it?! 

Profile photo of Tim Overlin
This post was written by

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to toolbar