(AP) Ariz. Court: Embryo Outside Not 'Person'

Townhall ^ | Oct 29 2005 | PAUL DAVENPORT

[AliVeritas]

days-old human embryo preserved outside the womb isn't a person under the Arizona law that allows lawsuits for wrongful deaths, the Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled.

The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed by a Phoenix-area couple against the Mayo Clinic, accusing it of losing or destroying some of their fertilized eggs.

The couple had asked the Court of Appeals to expand the definition of "person" under the wrongful-death statute to include embryos with the potential to be viable, but the court declined, saying it's a matter for the Legislature to decide.

A 20-year-old Arizona Supreme Court ruling on the wrongful-death law found that a fetus had to be viable _ able to survive outside the womb _ to support a lawsuit, and the Court of Appeals said Thursday there is still considerable debate surrounding start-of-life issues despite medical advances since 1985.

[emiller]

So I'm not a person either? That comes as a shock to me. Didn't Arizona just score as the stupidest state in the U.S.? I read that the other day, taking into account test scores and such in schools around the country. Co-inky-dink?
Hmmmmm

[emiller]

Oh... here it is-- tee-hee

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1509111/posts

[GSlob]

"So I'm not a person either? "
Depends. There are two aspects to being human: anatomical and behavioral. So to answer your question one would need the medical history and the character references. If, for example, you applied for a concealed carry and got the permit [it is, or should be, only given to humans in the above sense] then surely you are a person.

[connectthedots]

The couple had asked the Court of Appeals to expand the definition of "person" under the wrongful-death statute to include embryos with the potential to be viable, but the court declined, saying it's a matter for the Legislature to decide.

Pretty much a no-brainer of a decision.

[Reactionary]

I like the Nazi word "person" here.

I notice the eugenicists didn't use the word "human," which could easily be proven by a DNA test.

[Cicero]

Actually "person" is also a term frequently used by Pope John Paul II in what has been called is "personalist" approach to theology.

A "person" is a) an individual; b) human; c) alive. A slave qualifies as a person. A permanently paralyzed human individual qualifies as a person. An unborn child qualifies as a person.

Viability has nothing to do with it. A paraplegic might not be viable without assistance from others, but that doesn't make him any less a person.

Having said that, I think the couple who involved themselves with in vitro fertilization share the blame with the Mayo Clinic for creating and destroying human persons. But once created, it was wrong to destroy them. The court decision as stated is simply wrong, another perverse product of the unconstitutional arguments in Roe v. Wade that unborn persons are not persons--because they are inconvenient and troublesome to the people who want to get rid of them.

[Reactionary]

"A "person" is a) an individual; b) human; c) alive. A slave qualifies as a person. A permanently paralyzed human individual qualifies as a person. An unborn child qualifies as a person."

Yes. But this is not what the Left means when they use the word "person." They do not refer to primary characteristics. They do not, for instance, maintain that "personhood" or being "human" is based on biology. They define personhood in terms of secondary characteristics such as sociability, self-awareness, the ability to function in society, etc, generally speaking.

[Cicero]

Agreed. But I don't think we should let them kidnap our words. Rather than abandon the word "person" we need to take it back from them.

Here's a website I just found that mentions a few of the important texts by PJP II and Jacques Maritain, etc.

http://personalism.com/

[TheFrog]

Actually, the court did exactly the right thing it followed the law the as the legislature wrote it. If the people don't like the law they should contact their elected officials, and get it changed. It is not for the court to change the law.

[Cicero]

I presume the state law says that if you kill a "natural person," you can be sued for unlawful death. So the judges did NOT respect the state law; they interpreted to suit their pro-abortion preferences.

I say "natural person" because in common law "person" without the qualifier can also refer to a corporate entity.

[TheFrog]

You should go look at the AZ statutes then, according to AZ law the fetus is only an "unborn child" as long as it is in the womb. In this case the fertilized eggs were not. I did not write the law, I am just telling you what it says.

[Cicero]

OK, that wasn't at all clear in the article.

In any case, as I indicated, I think that the whole business of in vitro fertilization raises issues that should never have been raised in the first place.