A storage tank malfunction in Cleveland brings to light the inconsistency in the definition of “life.”

Earlier this year a fertility clinic at the University Hospital in Cleveland, OH had to explain why their storage tank failed, and 4000 frozen embryo’s and eggs were destroyed. The malfunction impacted approximately 950 families that had embryos and eggs stored in the tank.

CEO Thomas F. Zenty III issued a public apology and took responsibility for the malfunction and hoped actions taken after the incident would restore trust.

“We failed our fertility clinic patients. We are sorry. I am sorry. And we’re going to do everything we can to regain our patients’ trust.These failures should not have happened, we take responsibility for them – and we are so sorry that our failures caused such a devastating loss to you…We hope our actions will restore your trust in us.”

On the surface this looks like a tragedy. But why? According to Planned Parenthood, the Supreme Court, and the legal system in the United States, these were just blobs of tissue, cells clumped together that represented the potential for human life, certainly not anything alive. Why would anyone be upset over this incident?

Furthermore, why would anyone bring a lawsuit agains the clinic claiming a loss of life? A recent article on this situation reports:

“In Cleveland, clinic patients Wendy and Rick Penniman’s attorney is ‘asking the court to declare that an embryo is a person and that life begins at conception’, allowing the couple to bring a wrongful death lawsuit. However, the Roe v Wade decision, which legalised abortion, holds that a foetus, let alone an embryo, is not a person.”

There is a lot to unpack here.

First, let’s be clear that an embryo is a living, human being. It is the earliest stage of humanity when we are at our most vulnerable. To declare that an embryo is anything less than human is to ignore the science of humanity that has clearly concluded otherwise. Despite claims by abortion advocates that pro-life advocates are “anti-science,” the pro-life position is by far a more scientific position.

I agree with Antonia Tully of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) when he said:
“Of course we hope that the judge in this case does recognise the humanity of the embryos. But at the same time we must be clear that manufacturing human beings to order, outside the womb by IVF is inherently wrong. We must also remember that many other tiny embryonic humans will have been discarded at the time that these embryos were selected for freezing.”

That comment leads us to the strange aspect of this story and the couple that want to sue over “wrongful death.” By using IVF to create children outside the womb, the couple has themselves killed many human embryos. Each embryo that was deemed “unviable” was discarded; meaning a human life was ended. The very thing this couple wants to sue the clinic for is the thing they have themselves been guilty of.

This is where the worldview of many people is often inconsistent. People want to use IVF and have no concern for the loss of life due to this method of making babies. But when the loss is something they did not intend, suddenly it becomes litigious. Would a judge in this case be so clear in his worldview as to declare the couple has no standing to bring the suit because they took part in the intentional killing of human embryos and are, therefore, as guilty as the clinic?

The inconsistent worldview of an individual that willingly partakes in the destruction of human life through IVF, but then wants to sue for “wrongful death” will present serious legal challenges to any court that elects to hear the case.

Consider for a moment the ramifications of a judge declaring an embryo a human in the eyes of the law so this couple’s lawsuit can proceed. The immediate effect of that decision will be felt worldwide as every abortion law on the books is challenged. After all, if an embryo is a human being, it cannot be legal to knowingly, willingly kill another human being.

Perhaps a judge will declare that an embryo is a human being, but has no potential for life outside the womb and, therefore, can be killed if a mother chooses. This is the twisted logic abortion advocates often use. This is the twisted logic that complicates our legal system.

We’ve arrived at this place, where children can be created outside the womb and embryos are not currently viewed as human beings by our self-centered, selfish predilections. Our society is under the impression that everyone has a right to naturally conceive children. This underlying attitude can be seen in the rise of socialism. If one person has the right to be wealthy, we all have that right. Except we don’t. Not all inequality is harmful inequality.

I find myself once again in agreement with Antonia Tully, “While our hearts go out to infertile couples, no one has an absolute right to have children. IVF turns children into a commodity, rather than a gift.”