A Missouri state appellate court has decided (2-1) that frozen embryos from IVF are property, not children. IVF is a moral calamity, what with dozens of embryos being conceived and stored in freezers in perpetuity.
Notice now how they’re referring to them as “pre-embryos.” That term doesn’t explain what it actually is. Because they can’t. It’s like referring to the unborn as “potential life.” That doesn’t explain who the unborn are. So they refer to “it” as something that it might be if we allow nature to take its course. But it dare not be named currently, until a decision has been made.
In McQueen v. Gadberry, (MO App., Nov. 15, 2016), a Missouri state appellate court in a 2-1 decision held that frozen pre-embryos created from the husband’s sperm and the wife’s eggs for the purpose of in vitro fertilization are to be treated as marital property in a divorce proceeding, rather than being treated as children.
The appeals court upheld the trial court’s award of the pre-embryos to the husband and wife jointly with the stipulation that they could be used only with the consent of both parties. The wife had argued that because Mo. Rev. Statutes Sec. 1.205 declares that “the life of each human being begins at conception,” the court should have treated the pre-embryos as children and awarded her custody so that she could have them implanted to become pregnant. The majority held, however, that applying this declaration to pre-embryos would infringe the father’s right to privacy and his right not to procreate.
The majority observed:
We balance the interests of the parties in this case because the frozen pre-embryos are still in vitro and have not been transferred to or implanted in McQueen’s uterus, and therefore, the disposition of the frozen pre-embryos does not implicate McQueen’s right to bodily integrity in the area of reproductive choice under Roe which would outweigh any of Gadberry’s interests in avoiding parenthood.
Judge Dowd, dissenting, argued that the embryos should have been treated as children and the trial court should have applied the statutory provisions on child custody in awarding them. He argued that the father already made a reproductive decision in creating the embryos and so has no further reproductive decision to protect.