Parenting & Pregnancy >
Fertility Issues
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould embryos of donated eggs/sperm be considered persons?
Results so far:
| Yes | 53% | 57 votes | Total: 107 votes | |
| No | 47% | 50 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesIF CORPORATIONS ARE LEGAL PERSONS UNDER THE LAW - WHY NOT EMBRYOS.
Since personhood is a legal designation that assigns certain rights under the law, personhood can be granted to entities that are not human. Were this not true, corporations would not be persons under the law. But, corporations are legal persons so why not embryos?
When a sperm penetrates an egg, a new and separate creature is formed. The new creature, while carrying DNA of both the egg and sperm, is chromosomally distinct. A totally new and different creature. Not a clone of one or the other. In this way, and as an example, eyes - in humans - can be different in color from the eye color of the sperm and egg provider. This is because of how the chromosomal pool is disbursed, while gene carrying the chromosome is recessive or dominant and other elements of the creative process. In this way, the mother and father are said to have "created" a new child. However, since mother and father are not the designers of the method by which the creation actually takes life and self determines, the term "creator" of the human species remains debated to this day. The mother and father may have provided the egg and the sperm to a fertility clinic. This is called a "donation" to the clinic whether the parties are married or single.
When the creature takes on the separate identity but carries the DNA of the egg and sperm provider, that creature is designated by the science community to be of the same species as the egg and sperm provider. In the human species, sociologists and psychologist call the humans who provide the egg and sperm the mother and the father. The rise of technological terms to identify the mother and father of the new human creature have added to the terminology. Though reproductive technologies might call upon a mother and a father to donate eggs and sperm or anonymous 3d party male or females might do the same thing, once the egg and sperm of human unite, the parents of the embryo are still named the mother and the father.
In so far as mothers and fathers are identified as humans under the law, then certain rights adhere to them as human beings. One of the many rights that adhere to Mom and Dad is the right to have no harm done to them without those who do the harm subject to answering to a court. With those protections in place, the new creature cannot be manipulated except in ways already identified in the Hippocratic Oath. Even the new Mom and Dad could not order the engineering of a sex change for their own purposes. However, genetic health of the new creature could be maintained by Mom and Dad under the "do no harm" dictate that the Hippocratic Oath of the medical professional who might be assigned to bring the embryo into it's next developmental stage.
The only thing that seems to interrupt the logical conclusion of people of good will who want to protect a developing generation in the embryonic stage seems to be other interest of third parties who can vote for or against any legislator who would propose such a thing. So, corporations are named persons and embryo's are not. It is not because it does not make sense in any legal way. It is a dangerous territory, however, for those who stand for election once proposing such a thing
Write your article here
Learn more about this author, Judy Joyce.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
All life is a precious gift that should not be taken for granted or abused. But, not every living organism is equal. There is a hierarchy that must be observed and to be perfectly realistic some organisms are more sentient than others. To put all living things on the same plane is to disrespect nature.
A pile of ingredients on the the kitchen counter are not the banana bread. They must be cracked, pealed, combined, baked, and cooled before being recognized as the sum of its parts. The same idea goes for what can be considered a person.
Sure, the final product cannot exist without that which goes into its composition and for this reason embryos of donated eggs/sperm must be treated with respect for the potential of what they can become. But, they are still only embryos that need to be implanted and permitted to mature to the point where a baby can be born. That baby is the result its the genetic composition.
The question over its consideration as a person is really a question of ownership. Who owns it and how much is owed to it? Can it be terminated once initiated or would this be considered murder? Well, on the same plane would an unsuccessful fertilization or spontaneous miscarriage be considered death? To be sure, it is a death of an idea, a death of the expectation that the result would be a person. But, is it a death of an actual person? Few would agree that it is.
The other question is over the right to terminate. If the embryo is considered a person than the woman impregnated is no longer able to have the choice to terminate the pregnancy because she would be an accessory to murder. What if tests revealed a serious genetic mutation. Is she now bound to accept a life of suffering for both herself and the unborn child? Is the right for an innocent being to be condemned to a life of pain and suffering more significant than the right of a woman to free herself from an obligation that has not yet been realized? Some would say that we are all God's creatures and it is not for us to decide who lives or dies.
But, the production of babies, especially through the donation of eggs and sperm has less to do with acts of God and more to do with doctors playing God. So, that argument sort of already flew out the window.
A woman's right to choose what happens to her body and whom she agrees to be responsible for should always take precedence over the debatable rights of an embryo. Until a child is actually born, it is not a person. It is a fetus. It only has the potential to become a person. How can that be held in equal esteem as somebody who already is one?
Learn more about this author, Freyda Tartak.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
