Illinois judge rules test-tube embryo is a person

[Steve]

In yet another example of poorly-written law (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6935477/), a judge has had to decide social policy, for now at least. While it does seem unlikely this ruling will stand and would only be applicable to Illinois if it does, the implications are chilling.

The article discusses those implications better than I can but I do want to note that science, in this case reproductive research and technology, shouldn't be fettered by laws or decisions such as this without all of society hashing out the issue in public.

[cdw]

This is weird, if you ask me. Wrongful death? I can see suing because of lack of services or breaking of a contract or whatever, but wrongful death? I hope it doesn't stand.

[Arc]

Based solely upon the facts as presented in the article there is merit to the ruling. Simply put if the embryo can meet some legal criteria to be defined as a human being than a wrongful death suit can ensue. Now whether or not such a ruling can stand other tests is another matter. This obviously is not a slam dunk case. Far from it. Arguments on both sides have merit. The betting is against this ruling. But its important to distinguish a meritorious but weak argument or ruling as opposed to a frivolous or irresponsible one. This ruling is the former and not the latter.

Over all there has been insufficient or inadequate or contradictory laws written the past twenty years to cover the extremely broad category of the unborn including who their parents are, (such as in surrogate cases, etc.) It is not as simple as lay common sense would suggest.

This is a legal ruling not a moral or value judgment--at least based upon the facts in the article linked.

[ShinyTop]

I disagree strongly with the thought that the embryo is a person but I think it important to keep in mind the judge only allowed the suit to go forward, he did not decide the suit.