This is an infuriating aspect of this case. The courts could have held the clinic responsible for this loss without declaring that all frozen embryos are children by invoking the "prime mover" concept. Other courts have used it in, for example, surrogacy cases. In short, that concept holds that it's the intent of the parent(s) that matters, as the prime movers in the process of bringing a child into the world, not just the mixing of some genetic material. Those destroyed embryos could have become children, as it was the parents' intention to do so. And if nobody intends to implant embryos, for whatever reason, without the intent to make a child, they're merely organic material, neatly sidestepping those questions.

But, of course, the court wanted to impose its religious orthodoxy rather than issue a sensible ruling. Now we have those thorny questions.