U.S. Court Says Frozen Embryos Are Children — 3 Things Christians Should Consider

#2: What is a person?

A patient at an in-vitro fertilization (IVF) clinic in Mobile, Alabama, walked through an unsecured door and saw a freezer full of embryos. She opened the freezer and picked up some containers. The cold glass burned her hands, and she dropped the containers to the floor, where they smashed into pieces and destroyed the embryos of three other couples.

Those couples then tried to sue the fertility clinic for “wrongful death of a minor.” A lower court in Alabama said they could not sue for the destruction of frozen embryos, but the Alabama Supreme Court reversed that decision. According to those judges, frozen embryos should be considered “extrauterine children” with the same rights and protections as the born kind. The couples’ wrongful death lawsuit could continue.

Unless Alabama legislators pass a new law, IVF clinics will have to keep embryos frozen forever or face civil lawsuits and criminal charges. They may also face legal liability when an implanted embryo fails to attach to a placenta, a common occurrence in IVF treatment. Alabama fertility clinics, understandably, are stopping the creation of new embryos, leaving their current patients in the lurch.

Here are three things Christians should know about the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision on frozen embryonic personhood.

#1: Chief Justice Tom Parker Is a Christian Nationalist

I recently wrote about the retreat of Christian Nationalism — some good news for a change!

But I concluded that essay with a warning. Now is not the time to stop calling attention to Christian Nationalism and its implications. It’s the time to knock Christian Nationalism out of the mainstream entirely. The Alabama Supreme Court’s IVF decision illustrates why.

The Alabama Supreme Court is led by Chief Justice Tom Parker. He has publically spoken about his Christian Nationalist beliefs, specifically “7 Mountains Dominionism.” On a podcast hosted by Christian activist Johnny Enlow, released the same day as the IVF decision, Chief Justice Parker explicitly said that only Christians should control the government:

“God created government. And the fact that we have let it go into the possession of others, it’s heartbreaking for those of us who understand. And we know it is for Him. And that’s why He is calling and equipping people to step back into these mountains right now.”

Mountains? What’s he talking about, you ask?

Odette Yousef of NPR describes “7 Mountains” ideology:

The Seven Mountains Mandate urges adherents to establish what they consider to be God’s kingdom on Earth by taking control of seven areas of society: family, religion, government, education, arts and entertainment, commerce and media. Once relegated to a fringe of the Christian conservative movement, it has gained followers in recent years as the ranks of nondenominational, neo-charismatic Christians have grown in the U.S.

In other words, adherents to “7 Mountains” believe Christians should dominate society. They should run the whole show. What about non-Christians? They must fall in line or leave the country.

What’s wrong with Christians running the country? Nothing, as long as they don’t apply their religious beliefs contrary to “separation of church and state,” sound legal reasoning, scientific knowledge, public opinion, and practical impact. But that’s exactly what the Alabama Supreme Court did in its 8–1 decision to declare personhood for frozen embryos.

Tom Parker may be the most vocal about his Christian Nationalism, but he’s likely not the only Christian Nationalist on the Republican-dominated Alabama Supreme Court. Even if he was, Parker has also stated his intention to influence fellow judges in Alabama toward a Christian Nationalist ideology. A Chief Justice on the state Supreme Court wields significant power and influence within the state judiciary.

The Alabama Supreme Court decision on frozen embryos reveals the kind of government Christian Nationalism wants: judges, legislators, bureaucrats, and presidents who make decisions based on religious dogma and political ideology rather than legal reasoning, scientific facts, practical impact, public opinion, or plain old common sense.

#2: We Need to Define “Person”

Modern medical technology has complicated our understanding of “personhood” and created the environment in which some people can declare embryos, both frozen and implanted, to be “children.”

Sonograms depict black-and-white sihlouettes of babies’ heads. But those babies may be two-and-a-half inches long and missing most internal organs. Ultrasounds let us hear a baby’s heartbeat at only a few weeks of gestation. Actually, that sound is nerve activity where a heart will be. The image of a sonogram and the sound of a heartbeat connect with people on a visceral level, fueling an intuitive belief, “Life begins at conception.”

That intuitive belief, “Life begins at conception,” also has some science and logic behind it. Once a woman’s egg is fertilized by a man’s sperm, the process of life formation begins. If that process isn’t stopped, then the embryo (usually) grows into a baby that can survive outside the womb. An embryo is alive. People are alive. An embryo is a person.

Of course, pregnant women are people, too. Giving a non-viable fetus (one that can’t survive outside the womb) the same protections as a viable fetus necessarily controls women’s bodies and could adversely affect their safety, health, and well-being. Most abortion bans allow exceptions for “medical emergency,” but when does something become a “medical emergency” and who gets the decision-making power?

IVF complicates things further. If life begins at conception, then is an embryo outside the womb alive? Do fertility clinics have to freeze them until the end of time? The Alabama Supreme Court thinks so.

Chief Justice Parker wrote in his concurring opinion:

“We believe that each human being, from the moment of conception, is made in the image of God, created by Him to reflect His likeness.”

According to Parker and seven other justices, an embryo is a person whether it’s inside or outside of a womb. It’s a sacred imago dei, or image of God. Life begins at conception.

Imagine that you’re standing on a subway platform, holding a glass vial in each hand that contains your embryos (just go with it). You marvel at the life inside, the sacred images of God.

Then you notice a toddler pushing a baby stroller with a newborn infant straight to the edge of the subway platform. Where are the parents? Nowhere to be seen. The long whine of an arriving train fills the platform. The stroller’s front wheels dip over the platform’s edge, the newborn lurches forward, the laughing toddler keeps pushing.

Would you drop those embryos to stop the toddler and newborn? It’s the same number of “lives” either way, right? Aren’t your vials of embryos just as valuable as the breathing, walking humans in danger?

Medical technology and the pro-life movement muddied our collective understanding of personhood. Christians have a responsibility to help society reach a saner consensus definition.

#3: Christians Need a Framework for the Future

It’s especially imporant to define “person” now, because technology doesn’t hold still and questions of personhood won’t stop cropping up. Researchers are already working on artificial wombs.

Forget frozen embryos:

• Does an embryo implanted in an artificial womb count as “life”?
• Should IVF clinics be required to either keep embryos frozen or implant them into artificial wombs?
• Should pregnant women who don’t want to become mothers be required to allow doctors to transfer their fetuses into artificial wombs?
• Who will raise these children once born? What about the kids already in foster care who might like to be adopted?
• How might these children feel about not having biological parents?
• How might society regard them?

Thanks to CRISPR gene-editing technology, we could also engineer the children in both natural and artificial wombs. Existing technology already allows for basic genetic engineering of babies, but CRISPR could make genetic engineering more precise, powerful, and accessible.

What is the Christian perspective on using CRISPR to correct genetic diseases in an embryo before implanting it into a womb? On using CRISPR to produce a blond, blue-eyed genius likely to be tall and athletic?

Once, Christians abhorred IVF as tampering with God’s designs. Now, Christian Republican politicians are scrambling to protect IVF from their own appointed judges and preferred policies.

Could technologies like artificial wombs and CRISPR gene-editing become as accepted as IVF over time?

How will Christians respond?

The Backyard Church is not just a blog. It’s a real online community for people who have faith but can’t, don’t, or won’t go to church. Join today.

Check out my newsletter, Saving Faith, where we rebuild a faith that works one 2-minute read at a time.