 |
| Abby Hafer |
This ruling follows decades of U.S. conservatives calling embryos “unborn children.” It follows decades of these conservatives putting forward fetal “personhood” bills that insist on the same thing. The ruling is the logical outcome of this insistence.
It is also the logical outcome of the decades-old insistence that “life begins at conception.” This was always a deliberately deceptive remark. Since the subject is life, and biology is the study of life, one would think that the perspective of the science of biology would be important in any discussion on this topic. Here is the biological perspective: Life began approximately 3.7 billion years ago, and it’s been life ever since. Closer to the fetus: The egg was alive, the sperm was alive, the woman who formed the eggs was alive, the man who formed the sperm was alive — it’s one unbroken chain of life going back at least 3.7 billion years.
So what is formed at conception? A new chain of DNA. This new chain is a blueprint. It has the potential to eventually make a new human if many other things happen first and happen just right. What’s missing? Time and work. Time matters deeply in human physiology. Time makes the difference between a living person and a dead one. It makes the difference between a curable cancer and an incurable one. And it makes the difference between an embryo and a person when that time is coupled with work.
The work is done by the female body, and that work is substantial. That is why the phrase “unborn children” is insulting to women — it entirely ignores the process of gestation, which is female work. Women are known to do many other kinds of invisible work, and this is a particularly egregious example since the work of gestation is physiologically demanding, often nauseating, sometimes life-threatening and goes on for 24 hours a day for nine months. If one must give a status-based designation to an embryo, it should be “ungestated embryo.”
The legal ramifications of the Alabama ruling are what have caught people’s attention, but only because conservatives have finally been taken at their word. After decades of insisting that embryos are people, someone with legal power finally agreed and now people are horrified. People should indeed be horrified, but they should not be surprised. These arguments have been made by powerful people for many decades. The difference after this ruling is that now people must deal with the logical consequences of this faulty way of thinking.
There are many obvious logical legal consequences of this defective way of thinking. If embryos are people, then disposing of IVF-created embryos is indeed murder, something punishable by death or life imprisonment. But there are many other legal questions and consequences that necessarily arise.
Is storing these embryos in freezers jailing them? What if they are taken across state lines for disposal? What if the freezers fail? Legally, if embryos are people, then every miscarriage would be an accidental death at best and negligent homicide at worst. So — if a pregnancy naturally miscarries, should there be a trial in every case? Should there be appropriate interment for all fetal and embryonic remains?
Since scientists know that at least 25 per cent of human fertilized eggs fail to implant on the uterine lining, how will policing this be handled? Fertilized eggs that fail to implant simply exit the body along with menstrual fluid. That’s many thousands of “unborn persons” exiting women’s bodies every month. Shall women submit all their menstrual pads and other equipment to local police for inspection? Every month? After all, an unimplanted embryo, to the Alabama Supreme Court’s way of thinking, is an unaccounted-for death. If a 3-year-old child mysteriously dies, both legal and medical authorities get involved. Therefore, will all menstrual pads be inspected, and if the remains of a fertilized egg are found, will an investigation be held?
I realize that some of these questions seem far-fetched. But that is because the Alabama ruling is far-fetched. The ruling may be the logical outcome of a particular way of thinking, but that way of thinking is scientifically idiotic. Facts do not back it up in any way. Bad facts make bad laws. This is like taking someone to court for saying that the planets orbit the sun. Oh wait, that’s been done ...
Dr. Abby Hafer is a biologist, educator and writer with a doctorate in zoology from Oxford University. She teaches human anatomy and physiology at Curry College. She is the co-author of Bill H.471, a bill in the Massachusetts legislature that requires that all science taught in public schools be based on peer-reviewed science. Learn more at professionaldebunker.com and reach her at ahafer@curry.edu.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, LexisNexis Canada, Law360 Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at Peter.Carter@LexisNexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.