If you have been reading my posts, you know about the challenging issues of when a new human life begins and when preborn humans in the womb become people. The seminal issue in the pro-life movement now is the assertion that a fertilized human egg becomes a person at the moment of conception and is entitled by our Constitution to protection of its life.
The scientific fact that a new human life with unique DNA begins at the moment of conception is indisputable. That does not keep some people from saying that they know that abortion is the killing of a developing human being and that they still think abortion should be a free choice by the mother. Of course, that leads to questions concerning what age in the womb or after birth and at any other time in life should a person be legally able to take the life of another human being. If we do not respect life in all stages, then why respect life in any stage. If it is OK to kill an unborn child, then why should we be concerned when someone puts a newborn baby in the trash or shoots up a school to kill children or shoots down our citizens in the streets?
In my book Building a Culture of Life, I discuss the demographics of women who choose abortion and the reasons for that choice. I have a talk on this subject, as well. Therefore, I will not at this time delve further into the difficult circumstances in which women often find themselves, nor will I elaborate on what we can do to minimize such hardships. I also cannot spend space here on the issues of IVF. There is a brief discussion of IVF under a tab on the home page, and it is further discussed in my book.
Rather, at this time, let us return to the question of whether a human egg fertilized by sperm outside the body is a person from the moment of that fertilization. In IVF, several fertilized eggs are allowed to undergo several cell divisions in the lab, the beginnings of development into a baby. Then, some of the eggs that are judged to be the “best” are implanted into the womb of the mother. The others are frozen for possible use in the future if a viable pregnancy does not occur with the first attempt.
At first, the answer would seem to be that a new human person begins development into a baby from the moment the egg is fertilized, no matter whether it was fertilized in the woman’s body or in the lab outside her body. That seems intuitive. However, it not only raises question of whether the frozen embryos are people, but whether they are property, and are they heritable, and what act is it if those embryos are destroyed. If killing a baby in the womb is homicide, then the question is whether destroying frozen embryos is also homicide. And, that gets us to the point of this post.
At a fertility clinic in Alabama, three women underwent IVF and delivered healthy babies. Their excess fertilized eggs were frozen for possible use in future. “In December 2020, a patient of that hospital entered the fertility clinic’s cryo-preservation unit and opened one of the tanks in which frozen embryos are stored. These embryos are stored at sub-freezing temperatures, so when the patient put his hand in and grabbed some of the embryos, he burned himself and dropped the embryos, which hit the ground and were destroyed.” (Johns Hopkins, 2-27-24).
The plaintiff couples brought lawsuits against the fertility clinic and the hospital under the Alabama Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. The trial judge dismissed the case, saying that embryos that exist in vitro are not people or children for the purposes of the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act.
On appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court, the lower court ruling was reversed on February 16, 2024, finding that the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act applies “to all unborn children without limitation. And that includes unborn children who are not located in utero at the time they are killed.” The court also cited a 2018 Alabama constitutional amendment that says “it is the public policy of this state to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children,including the right to life.”
In other words, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are children. It follows that implanted embryos, by natural or IVF means, are children, distinct human persons, from the moment of conception. The lawsuit seeking punitive damages for the wrongful death of their children was allowed to proceed.
When embryos are thawed and prepared for implantation in the woman’s womb during IVF, they may be damaged or destroyed. This gave concern for legal liability and the question of whether such loss of an embryo could be homicide. This sent shock waves through the medical community involved with IVF and those who favor abortion for any reason at any stage of development.
Then the argument ensured that IVF is actually a pro-life procedure, that it creates new life. That comment leaves those who believe in a divine Creator feeling somewhat uncomfortable, and it leads into theological issues of ensoulment (which we will skip !) However, IVF has provided many couples with the ability to have children they otherwise could not have. The emotional impact on these people must not be overlooked, but the fact that tiny humans in development are being frozen and manipulated and willfully discarded also cannot be overlooked. There are roughly one and one-half million embryos in frozen storage around the world at this time.
Alabama lawmakers promptly acted to pass legislation providing “criminal immunity for manufacturers of products used in IVF treatment if embryos are destroyed, though not civil immunity. Manufacturers of goods used in IVF found responsible would be required to compensate for damages, based on the cost of the fertilization treatment paid by the family.” “In Louisiana, intentionally destroying “viable” embryos is prohibited, which means doctors are not allowed to dispose of any embryos that are still dividing. An embryo that fails to continue developing within a 36-hour period is deemed non-viable and loses its limited legal status as a person.” (Alabama Reflector 3-11-24)
All parities agree that this complicated and emotionally charged issue is far from settled. There is much discussion taking place, but there are no easy answers in this intersection of science, where it means so much to couples to have children, with the horror of discarding human lives in the process.
Watch this space for follow-up on this issue over time, as well as follow-up on the issue before SCOTUS of whether the FDA abrogated its responsibility in approving the abortion pills, and if so, where will we go from here on the availability of such drugs. In the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, we are likely to see additional ramifications over time. Let us realize that the issues are very much alive and in dispute so that we do not become complacent but ensure that we understand the issues, make informed decisions, and be sure our voices are heard.