Illinois Ruling: IVF Test Tube Embryo is Human Being

Another embryonic definition fight is on its way.

“I certainly admire the initiative of the Cook County judge in taking this step,” but it likely will not survive any appeals attempts, Rosenblum said.

The judge refers in his ruling to an Illinois statute that implies that wrongful death lawsuits can be filed on behalf of the unborn regardless of age. In Lawrence’s interpretation, that includes a test-tube embryo before pregnancy — the microscopic bunch of cells that form after an egg is fertilized in the laboratory but before being implanted into the womb.

If his interpretation is correct, then the clinic worker that failed to properly store the embryo should be held for negligent homicide at least. Wrongful death is for civil cases. Why isn't anyone moving ahead with murder charges? Because its rubbish.

Unborn regardless of age to include test tube embryos prior to implantation?
I think this is a grand stretch. Consider the definitions of "born" and "birth."
born: Brought into life by birth.
birth: The emergence and separation of offspring from the body of the mother.
Now, if the embryo isn't implanted, doesn't that make birth impossible?

The article goes on to describe the devastating effect this could have on the IVF procedure if it is upheld. Fortunately, it will only hold true in Illinois.

American Medical News has a discussion on the ethical issue and related science. It doesn't discuss the Illinois case, but does speak about the excess embryos that are still in storage around the country.

Interestingly they point out that about 35% of the frozen embryos won't survive thawing. Would that then mean, but the Illinois ruling, that the clinics can be held accountable for the wrongful death of the embryo, since they are the ones that froze them?

This statement of one of the doctors interviewed bothers me:

Dr. Keenan's facility has a strict policy on not destroying any leftover embryos when a couple is finished creating a family.

"If they want to work with me, couples need to sign a release saying that if they don't use them, the embryos would be made available for donation to other couples," he said. "If they don't agree, they go elsewhere."

I think technically, in the courts, that someone can be held accountable for paternity costs if the "donated" embryo is used. I don't believe there is any legal waver on the source of the embryo when it comes to child support. (Obviously I'm not a lawyer, but if a lawyer got a hold of this, you bet they would try to make money off of it.)

The Conservative Voice provides the perfect crackpot article on the subject.

"Judge Lawrence understands what science has taught for a long time," said Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life. "Rulings of courts should be based on these simple scientific facts. Otherwise, public policy will be subject to the whims of those who want to exploit human beings by defining them as less than human."

Simple Scientific Fact? Where did you pull this out of Father? (I'll stop here because I can only think of snide thing relating to choir boys to say.) I don't know where he found his scientific teaching, but I haven't seen anything that one would call definitive on the subject of when life begins. Not to mention when life becomes "human."