[Update: While the problem posed here is actually a serious question, I want to thank all the people who came up with more and more absurd consequences to the Alabama ruling. Jean and I have had a lot of laughs reading them! ]
The Alabama Supreme Court ruling that frozen embryos have all the rights of a born person is about to meet the Law of Unintended Consequences. If an embryo is a person, shouldn’t that mean it gets to inherit, especially if its parents die without a will?
(This question was posed by my wife, Jean, who was a probate lawyer for some years. Credit where credit is due. She also insists on the caveat that she’s not sure if this argument will hold, but wants me to present it for discussion.)
Consider this scenario: A couple has a child through IVF. That process requires fertilizing multiple eggs and selecting one; the remaining eggs are now frozen. Tragically, the parents die in a car accident, and it turns out they are intestate (they never made a will). Under the various state laws, their estate is divided among their heirs according to some specified formula. In all states, the couple’s children are among those heirs.
In a sane world, the child already born, even if started via IVF, would be the only child to inherit. But the Alabama court has decreed that all those other embryos enjoy equal rights to the born child. Shouldn’t that mean they count equally as heirs? That the estate must be now be shared with them? Must a court now appoint a guardian for them, ensure that estate funds are allocated to maintain the freezer? Who inherits from the embryos when they are no longer viable?
Yes, this is a ridiculous situation. But that is exactly the point: By declaring that an embryo in a freezer is equivalent to a living human being, and enjoys all the rights of a living human being, the Alabama court has created just this ridiculous situation. And probably others.