- Feb 5, 2002
- 166,678
- 56,288
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Falsehoods about the Alabama Supreme Court rulinginvolving in vitro fertilization (IVF) deserve refutation. We also need a close examination of the incoherence of current U.S. law.
The demagoguery surrounding last week’s Alabama Supreme Court ruling involving in vitro fertilization (IVF)—incendiary rhetoric being pushed by Democrats to stoke a new fear while making political hay over abortion—deserves refutation. It also deserves an honest look at the incoherence of U.S. law caused by the distortions of almost 50 years of Roe v. Wade.
As some commentators have noted, this case was notbrought by pro-life advocates trying to create fetal personhood. It was brought by clients of the clinic who tried to get pregnant through its “services.” Apparently, “a patient wandered into the facility where the clinic stored embryos and dropped several of them.”
So, what happened to those embryos? They ceased being embryos. They were now dead tissue (not unlike the dead tissue we put into coffins).
So, what happened?
Did they “die?” You can’t “die” unless you previously “lived”–and that proposition would make pro-abortionists go ballistic.
Were they “damaged?” Clearly, irreparably.
But do we want to say they’re “damaged?” Damage usually happens to things. I drop a vase and it’s “damaged,” i.e., broken. Do we want to classify embryos as just “things,” not essentially different from–say–the damaged wedding pictures caused when the postman ignores the “Do Not Bend” stamp on the envelope and wedges them into your mail slot?
Continued below.
www.catholicworldreport.com
The demagoguery surrounding last week’s Alabama Supreme Court ruling involving in vitro fertilization (IVF)—incendiary rhetoric being pushed by Democrats to stoke a new fear while making political hay over abortion—deserves refutation. It also deserves an honest look at the incoherence of U.S. law caused by the distortions of almost 50 years of Roe v. Wade.
As some commentators have noted, this case was notbrought by pro-life advocates trying to create fetal personhood. It was brought by clients of the clinic who tried to get pregnant through its “services.” Apparently, “a patient wandered into the facility where the clinic stored embryos and dropped several of them.”
So, what happened to those embryos? They ceased being embryos. They were now dead tissue (not unlike the dead tissue we put into coffins).
So, what happened?
Did they “die?” You can’t “die” unless you previously “lived”–and that proposition would make pro-abortionists go ballistic.
Were they “damaged?” Clearly, irreparably.
But do we want to say they’re “damaged?” Damage usually happens to things. I drop a vase and it’s “damaged,” i.e., broken. Do we want to classify embryos as just “things,” not essentially different from–say–the damaged wedding pictures caused when the postman ignores the “Do Not Bend” stamp on the envelope and wedges them into your mail slot?
Continued below.
Embryos, injuries, and damages
www.catholicworldreport.com
