It has become standard medical protocol during in vitro fertilization to extract as many eggs as possible from a woman, then to fertilize them to create embryos before freezing them. Generally, only one embryo is transferred at a time into the uterus in order to maximize the chances of successful implantation and a full-term pregnancy.
“But what if we can’t freeze them?” [asked the head of a group that represents the interests of infertility patients]. “Will we hold people criminally liable because you can’t freeze a ‘person’? This opens up so many questions.”...
I'm seeing the idea that the economics of the infertility treatment business have been radically transformed (at least in Alabama).
Posts
46 comments:
It's human (not wolf) but not a human.
“You can’t freeze children, but you can freeze an embryo, so embryos aren’t people” may be the most ridiculous and unscientific argument I’ve heard in support of abortion yet.
Different environmental factors affect any living organism in different ways at different stages of the life cycle - in humans, even between childhood and adulthood - that doesn’t make the organism not the organism at one stage versus another.
“Trust the SCIENCE(tm)!,” I guess, but by all means feel free to make it up as you go along.
- Rafe
This is a fundraiser for the Dems. And theology at variance with public opinion. Roe v Wade was wrong because it took an issue that should be left to the people and claimed it must be governed by the Constitution. That's why this decision is wrong.
Sheesh. Alabama.
Surely the eggs and semen are just as easily frozen as an actual embryo.
"The image of God"? They're not even pretending that they're interpreting the law.
Presumably this means that all abortion is illegal, even to save the life of the mother, and every miscarriage will have to be investigated criminally.
All this just to stop some people from forming a loving family around a wanted child. There's a certain strain of Christian that enjoys watching other people suffer.
An unauthorized, patient not staff, person improperly took the frozen embryos and dropped them, destroying the ability to implant.
No one is charging the clumsy oaf with murder. But they want the clinic to be civilly responsible.
Surely allowing access to the frozen storage area by a patient resulting in the loss is negligent and SHOULD be subject to damages..... But the "news" focuses only on the "frozen embryo is a child" as an impact on fertility clinics.
I recall years ago the pro-choice crowd did not want to be able to convict a shooter of homicide when he shot a pregnant woman killing her unborn child but not her.
Such is the tangled web when defining the difference between a clump of cells from a baby based solely on the whim of the mother.
This has an equal and opposite effect as the Trump prosecutions. Zealots on both sides like being Martyrs to their futile causes.
The Boys from Brazil 1978.
I don't necessarily disagree with the ruling (though admit its a very contemporary and complicated issue). Given my own professional interests (and having just written a chapter for an upcoming book on the topic of the image of God) I'm stumbling over the chief justice's theology.
If human life is destroyed that act effaces God's glory?
From the OED:
"To rub out, obliterate (writing, painted or sculptured figures, a mark or stain) from the surface of anything, so as to leave no distinct traces."
"In wider sense: To cause to disappear entirely, do away with (a visible feature or object)."
1611
Effacer, to efface, deface, raze, blot, rub out, wipe away; to abolish.
R. Cotgrave, Dictionarie of French & English TonguesCitation details for R. Cotgrave, Dictionarie of French & English Tongues
…
1863
The ignominious images, painted on the public buildings..were effaced.
‘G. Eliot’, Romola vol. II. i. 2Citation details for ‘G. Eliot’, Romola
We can see the importance of human life in Genesis 9:5-6, and Paul talks about people as the image of God thus the glory of God in 1 Corinthians 11 (well men at least, Paul is a little troubling here in his phrasing).
But we also have a lot of death in the Bible. A lot of death, a really crazy amount of death some of which is commanded by God himself in much of what Christians call the Old Testament.
I'm not saying murdering people isn't an offense against God, the Genesis passage makes that clear, but it seems rather overstated to say that God's glory is effaced. It disappears entirely?
I'm not sure people have that much power. But I'll admit I'm still wrestling with Parker's phrasing. And his ruling. There's an argument to be made (I'm still considering whether it's a good one) that the very act of fertility treatment is an affront, if not effacing, of God's sovereignty if not his glory. Do we have the right to freeze images of God for our own satisfaction and fulfillment? I'm not Catholic, but I don't think that the eucharist is allowed to be frozen. There's a kind of idolatry here, in fact, a production of images that makes them a commodity not a gift. But I'm also extremely wary about saying that children who have a past that includes being a frozen embryo reflect an abuse against God's intended order. I know such children and they really are gifts and fully human in all the ways God loves and works through.
But if we freely discard human embryos because they didn't get the nod by the divinesque implanting doctor, we are making ethical choices about human value based on usefulness rather than being itself. And while that's a line that has been crossed ever since Genesis 4 in a Biblical perspective, it's still a line that exists for very good reasons.
The trouble all comes down to distorted ethics breeding more ethical dilemmas that were never intended to be conceived.
I think I need some coffee.
Blogger Tom T. said...
Blah Blah blah...
There's a certain strain of Christian that enjoys watching other people suffer.
That's why they wear execution porn symbols around they necks and some even pretend to drink blood and eat human flesh.
All is forgiven 🙏
"Forget it Jake. It's Alabama."
The article fails to acknowledge the scientific argument that human life begins at conception. Nor does the article acknowledge that there might be a distinction made between a developing human life and a human person with human rights.
I have questions.
What does Tom Parker want to do with the embryos that are already in the cooler?
Would he require the parents to implant them one at a time and bring them to term?
Should the State of Alabama pay surrogate mom's to do the job? Then put the kids into foster care?
God picked a funny way to make babies.
It's always great news when a conservative judge gives a homily from the bench, to support his case. If you're a Democrat, that is.
Republicans seem to be absolutely determined to cut their throat, but piously, over the abortion issue. On this issue, they don't seem to grasp a basic precept of human intelligence: You can't make a persuasive philosophical case when, in the process, you torpedo its legitimacy by being stupid.
Sorry, I can only think of gaming the dependents rule with IRS...
This is as stupid and non-scientific bit of political theater as was on-demand 3rd trimester abortion. A pox on both their houses.
No decree from a court was necessary. Human embryology has for decades asserted that life begins at conception.
That began before Democrats learned that science is on the payroll.
So much for separation of Church and state, Alabama... does the constitution mean nothing to the right wing? Only "God's" laws? Lets use those as an excuse to do bad things.
Ugh
Vicki from PASADENA
>hombre said...
No decree from a court was necessary. Human embryology has for decades asserted that life begins at conception.<
I've studied human embryology rather extensively. I must have slept through the lectures where "human embryology" made that assertion. Or, more likely, I missed it because of the fact that the science of human embryology does not make explicit declarations on when life begins.
Classic media misinformation on display here. The Court ruled Alabama’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act included embryos. That doesn't make anyone criminally liable for destroying embryos -- the bad actor in this case accessed the embryos without authorization and caused their destruction. The Court even expressly held that it wasn't deciding criminality. It also doesn't prevent anyone from electing to destroy their embryos. Indeed the plaintiffs in this case had instructions on file to destroy embryos that weren't used within a given period of time or that had abnormalities. All this case held was that if you kill someone's embryos against their wishes you can be civilly liable. But the media and the left (but I repeat myself) don't waste any opportunity to twist a narrative to try to make a different point. Don't be so naive as to fall for their games.
Let's talk about luxury beliefs.
Interesting to see God invoked in a judicial opinion.
This makes the Left angrier than pointing out Allah wants Muslims to kill them.
I accept that Islam has similar blasphemy laws on defacing images of God as Christians, but I find this ruling to be an encroachment on the US 1st Amendment in many ways similar to the recent bad decisions on defamatory claims made against Trump and Steyn.
Is it a defacement of God’s image if the embryo is damage during the freezing process?
I found the lower court's summary findings interesting. On the one hand, the judge declared the embryos were not a "person" or "child" and thus no wrongful death claim could be made.
But on the other hand, the embryos were human beings and thus the ban on compensatory damages for loss of the human life applied to any tort.
"The trial court also concluded that the plaintiffs’ negligence and wantonness claims could not proceed. Specifically, the court reasoned that, to the extent those claims sought recovery for the value of embryonic children, the claims were barred by Alabama’s longstanding prohibition on the recovery of compensatory damages for loss of human life."
>hombre said...
No decree from a court was necessary. Human embryology has for decades asserted that life begins at conception.<
>Ice Nine said...
I've studied human embryology rather extensively. I must have slept through the lectures where "human embryology" made that assertion. Or, more likely, I missed it because of the fact that the science of human embryology does not make explicit declarations on when life begins.<
That's some hair splitting there, Ice. A distinct human life is created at the moment of fertilization, one with unique DNA. There's no scientific dispute about it. The viability argument or the moral judgement about when abortion should and should not be allowed are separate issues, subject to one's opinion and mores, but we know exactly when a new human is created and the technical term is zygote, a fertilized ovum.
In reference to other very recent news, this sentence is easily reworked, and I believe the issue below will have a longer and wider impact than some judge in AL who will be overturned quickly by a more liberal judge:
"I'm seeing the idea that the economics of the real estate business have been radically transformed (at least in New York)."
Can the parents claim these “children” as dependents for tax purposes? Could someone adopt the whole bunch as a tax write off?
Agree with Reddington. People should read the actual decision.
If you believe (and it's not implicitly an untenable belief) that unimplanted frozen embryos should be legally treated differently than an embryo in the womb, then the solution is to amend the statutes so they are treated differently.
The court ruled that the law, as written, considers them the same. That's not a wrong decision by the court even if they shouldn't be considered the same.
It's not controversial to argue that just because we can doesn't mean we should. It's wisdom.
Until it is controversial. Then it's oppression.
Still, this is a question best left to the voters, not a judge.
Link to decision.
Gulf Shores/Orange Beach is the absolute best place in America. Please stay away all commie pinkos. We hate you just as much as you hate us and your scumbaggery will not be accepted. Oh, and damned near everybody is armed and polite. But definitely armed.
Having read the decision, the concurrence by the CJ Parker, and the dissent, I'd say it is a well-reasoned decision fully in accordance with ASC precedent, Alabama law, and the Alabama Constitution.
The "theological" references in the CJ's concurrence are simply a restatement of the intent of the people expressed in Alabama's Constitution.
The path to a different result lies in changing the law, not an intervention by an activist court.
Here is a scenario: a worker accidentally unplugs a freezer with 100 embryos--guilty of mass manslaughter? If you can posit a reasonable scenario that leads to an absurd result, then the ruling is absurd. And I oppose abortion.
There are over a million frozen embryos in the US. Something like 20% to 25% are "abandoned." That is the "parents" no longer want them and are not paying the bills to keep them frozen. However, the freezer/strorage companies don't know what to do with them. Under Alabama law, would they be guilty of murder if they tossed them? How about the "parents"? Can they be charged with child neglect or abandonment? What a can of worms we have here.
>Mike (MJB Wolf) said...
That's some hair splitting there, Ice. A distinct human life is created at the moment of fertilization, one with unique DNA. There's no scientific dispute about it. The viability argument or the moral judgement about when abortion should and should not be allowed are separate issues, subject to one's opinion and mores, but we know exactly when a new human is created and the technical term is zygote, a fertilized ovum.<
No hairs split by me. I said nothing about DNA, scientific disputes, moral judgements, or abortion. (I don't argue abortion with anyone - certainly not online - since that is a fool's errand.) I only stated a fact about what he said.
He said that human embryology asserts that life begins at conception. I've seen the assertions made by the science of human embryology in my studies of the subject and a verdict on when life begins is not among them. The science of human embryology does not concern itself with proclamations on that particular subject since such editorializing is not within its purview. I pointed out nothing more than that.
victoria said...
"Congress shall pass no law..............."
Ha congress passed a law Vicki? Is Alabama congress?
Don't see too much here that is any more dramatic than declaring that a biological male is a woman... and can have a baby.
So much for separation of Church and state, Alabama... does the constitution mean nothing to the right wing
Won't speak for others, but I care enough to at least get it right.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . . "
There is no 'separation of church and state.' It is a convenient obfuscation.
I put up a link. Some of you might want to briefly review it so that your comments would be at least somewhat related to the decision in question.
Murder ain't in the picture. It's about whether a specific law allows a civil action for the careless destruction of an IVF embryo.
If you trust the media any at all, you trust them too much.
Rusty at 247 has raised the question of whether the Bill of Rights, in its restrictions upon Congressional action, is binding on the State of Alabama. it's a reasonable question.
Since the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868 the Supreme Court has evolved the doctrine of selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights, predicated on the notion that certain due process rights embodied in the Bill of Rights were made applicable to the States by the 14th Amendment. The idea seems to be that the post Civil War concept of states rights was inherently less expansive than the version enacted in 1791, and that the people had enacted a more uniform concept of the fundamental rights of American citizens.
It's a knotty issue, especially the selectivity, and one that seems to have been assembled in fits and starts. Google "selective incorporation" if you're interested.
Rabel
Fertility doctors go through great lengths to comply with the couples religious wishes. One of the most soul crushingly sad thing in this world is, after three tries, a woman can't get pregnant because there is something wrong with her equipment. IVF is truly a modern medical miracle.
Tom T.,
"...forming a loving family around a wanted child."
Really...
"Actually, you would have had an older brother or sister, but we decided to kill them instead."
Thank you Amp.
I will look into it.
I have long thought this is an interesting question and I think Alabama gets it right. Specifically, Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." [Relevant part]
There has been a lot of debate on whether the 14th Amendment applies to the unborn (I don't think it does because they have not been "born"), but I think you would have a hard time saying the embryos aren't human and haven't been born.
Briefly, Webster's unabridged 1864 dictionary defines born as "Brought forth, as an animal; brought into life; introduced by birth." And it defines birth as "The act or fact of coming into life, or of being born."
And be careful thinking you can pass a statute to say that human embryos aren't covered by the 14th Amendment. There are those who want to also end birthright citizenship by passing a statute.
Arguably, you could create a process to deprive these frozen embryos of the right to terminate their life and liberty. ("...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...")
Post a Comment