I think the question was about frozen embryos, and he answered with the distinction between human live and human personhood in mind.
Frozen embryos are not persons. They are human lives, but they are not persons.
Got it? The tiny frozen embryos in the lab are not persons. Of course these embryos deserve respect and should not be used for experiments or as commodities. In fact making such embryos should be outlawed.
Do you think that a newly orphaned child whose parents died leaving 7 frozen embryos in the lab should only take 1/8 of his parents estate so that 7/8 can go to the 7 embryos on ice in case someone plants them in a womb someday? If you think these 7 embryos are persons then your answer is yes. it is VERY nuanced. It is NOT simple as you wish to paint it.
There lots of other examples.
It is morally wrong to conceive eight embryos and freeze seven. The only truly moral way to do artificial insemination is to try the process one embryo conceived at a time, or implant all conceived embryos and try to bring them to natural birth. You might even line up several ‘mothers’/surrogates so no conceived embryo is ‘frozen like processed fish’.
I agree this is not a simple issue. However, if he were attempting to delineate between human life and human personhood then I fail to see the distinction as it pertains to his comment RE: implantation. Is personhood established by virtue of implantation?
In broader terms, that line of thinking seems to suggest that personhood is granted by the overt act of another; the implantation of a frozen embryo into the womb. I find it disturbing that one’s view on important philosophical and ethical matters is dependent upon biology.
As for the legal argument you put forth I would submit that at this stage our nation isn’t ready to address such concerns. We as a nation can’t seem to come to agreement on the biological truth that life begins at conception.
Having said all that, I’m very glad Newt put out this statement.
Thank you for you response.