Here's a story from my law class.
There was a couple who froze an embryo. Then they decided, a little while later, to get a divorce. The wife told the husband she was going to get the embryo put in (total bitch move) and that he'd have to pay child support.
So he went to the business with all the embryos and cut the main power cord. All the power got shut off and all hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos were destroyed. The wife couldn't get the embryo.
He was charged with tampering with a power box. Not murder. Not destruction of property :p
Here's the kicker.
The law states that you cannot own people - so it can't be destruction of property because you cannot own an embryo since, in this case, the law recognizes the combination of an egg and sperm as a person.
HOWEVER, it wasn't murder because the law also states that an embryo is not a person.
So he served 93 days in jail.
It trips me up that the law is so gray lol - it's either a person or it's not. But apparently it's both lmao
Most Helpful Guy
Mmh... I don't know what to say to this ;-). I think on an emotional level, I really understand and sympathize with the parents of these embryos. Of course it's not right to just "kill" them. On the other hand, I also understand the rational approach of the law and the philosophical idea behind it. Though parents might consider an embryo something like a child, it's not. Biologically speaking, an embryo has practically nothing in common with a person. It can't do anything a person can. It can't leave independently. On the other hand, it's still a - very primitive - form of life. Considering it as property is not just dangerous because of the slavery idea (persons can't be owned) but also because regarding an embryo as property would give us the justification to do with it anything we want. If you buy a chair and you burn it, nobody will take offense, because it's simply a piece of property. Burning the neighbor's chair will also not piss him off as much as burning his dog, because again, a chair is only property (I actually don't know what the legal status of pets is in the US, in my country they're not considered "things" (property) by the law. But let's not get into this here). Maybe an embryo could be compared to a bacteria or a virus. It's an extremely simple form of life and has nothing to do with human beings but it's still more than a thing. So if I was a judge, I would find this an extremely tricky situation to make a decision that is fair for everyone. I think personally, I would have settled for something similar but I would have made the guy pay a fine or perhaps a symbolic amount of financial compensation to all the parents for their disappointment, amounting to a total of perhaps 10,000-50,000 dollars.0
Most Helpful Girl
The pisses me off. He got a great lawyer though. To me that is murder because those people wanted a child someday and he took that potential and that life away from everyone. Plus he was so fucking selfish. Is this is a real case?1