IVF and the Alabama Supreme Court

Newsletter item for St. Paul's Episcopal, May, 2024

  

On February 16 of this year, the Alabama Supreme Court issued a ruling that stated that frozen embryos, a result of in-vitro fertilization (IVF), were in fact children when applying the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act to cases in Alabama. This is extraordinary because no other legal precedent has addressed the personhood of fertilized embryos in this way. The court’s decision came from an appealed lower court judgement in which three families lost stored embryos due to an accident, and the hospital was sued under the Act for damages. The state supreme court ruled that the Act did apply because it considered fertilized embryos to be children under the Act. This has advanced the belief that life begins at conception for pro-life supporters, thus showing that all abortions are immoral. I will explore the bioethics of IVF and the implications of the court’s decision in this article.

The idea that abortion is murder is based on one of the 10 Commandments, and willfully ending a human life is murder. The claim that life begins at conception is flawed because life exists as a continuous state. Seeds from plants are alive, in the sense that they will begin to produce plant structures when conditions are right (i.e., water, soil, and sunlight). But, if you buy mustard seeds from a store, they will not sprout because they have been killed by the process of preparing them as a food item. Eggs and sperm cells are similarly alive, and sperm cannot fertilize an egg if one of them is dead or severely compromised. There is never a time when something is not alive prior to successful conception. So, the real issue is when does personhood, or individuality start. 

Judaism defines personhood starting at the time a baby takes its first breath, following Genesis 2:7, where God breathed into the nostrils of a human, formed from the dust of the earth. Fetuses are not considered viable medically until their lungs can function, which is usually around 24 weeks. Another evidence of life has been a fetal heartbeat, however a heart isolated from the nervous system that controls it will continue to function at 120 beats per minute. This is the same rate seen in fetuses whose nervous systems are not yet developed. The heart of a brain-dead person will continue to beat as long as their blood is oxygenated and nutrients are pumped in and this is the same condition for a fetus during pregnancy. What makes us living persons is our personalities, our memories, our ability to interact with the world, our ability to think, our ability to pray to and worship God. When those are all gone because of brain death, that person is no longer present, even if their body continues to live. Thus, it can be difficult to accept that a fetus with no memory, no apparent personality, and no ability to interact with the world is alive the same way a child or an adult is alive.

The Alabama Supreme Court’s decision to classify frozen embryos as children raises several questions that point to serious legal and ethical concerns. Frozen embryos are stored as a ball of around 8 cells that have not begun to separate into organs and tissues. They are not like children who run, jump, play, and love us. There is the question of responsibility: embryos do live long outside of the human body. Frozen embryos are stored in extremely low temperatures in liquid nitrogen but will eventually die, or they can be discarded if no more children are desired. Who, then, is responsible for their death and should be punished under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act? Would their death result in charges of capital murder or manslaughter?

IVF is a painful and very expensive process that harvests many eggs from a woman and fertilizes them with sperm cells. In a single treatment cycle, perhaps half of the eggs are fertilized, a quarter survive long enough to be implanted, and maybe one or two survive implantation to establish a pregnancy. Who should be held responsible for the death of so many children, and should IVF be outlawed because it causes so many deaths? If IVF is too expensive or unsuccessful for them, how do childless couples fit into the conservative Christian ideal of a family of a married man and woman with children? Is it reasonable to expect them to be open to adoption as a second choice? 

The most troubling aspect of the state supreme court’s decision is in the opinion written by Chief Justice Tom Parker, a dominionist Christian. He wrote that “Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God… Even before birth, all human beings have the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.” These are clearly theological arguments offered as legal opinion and precedent in a secular justice system. This moves us that much closer to a theocracy, where laws are built on scriptural interpretations of individuals with influence. In effect, Justice Parker is using the weight and power of his court to advance his religious beliefs to the detriment of other beliefs. This goes against the Anglican tradition of a private accountability to God held sacred, and a church that does not require certain beliefs. In the end, Justice Parker’s opinions and the court’s decisions are about accumulating and consolidating power to remake the world in their own image. If supporters of the court’s decision were truly concerned with preserving the sanctity of life to God’s glory, Jesus’ call to serve to poor, hungry, homeless, and unloved children would be the law of the land.