Ectogenesis Essay Question

Szafranski and Ms. Dunston would both be considered legal co-parents of the child and that Mr. Szafranski agrees to undertake all legal, custodial, and other obligations to the child regardless of any changes between each party. Furthermore, the co-parent agreement went on to state that any eggs retrieved and cryopreserved as a result of the in vitro fertilization retrieval shall be under Ms. Dunston’s sole control and should the couple separate, Ms. Dunston will control the disposition of those pre-embryos. The co-parent agreement was never signed yet the couple moved forward with the in vitro fertilization. In May of 2010, Mr. Szafranski sent Ms. Dunston a text message effectively ending their relationship and then filed a pro se complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County three months later seeking to permanently enjoin Ms. Dunston from using the pre-embryos so he could preserve his right to not be forced into fathering a child against his will. Mr. Szafranski argued that a man and woman are in equal positions when it comes to cryopreserved embryos as they’re not inside the woman’s body. Therefore, Mr. Szafranski argued, “the constitutional right not to be a parent means the consent of both the woman and the man is required for any sue of the pre-embryos. “ In September

Before women had rights to decide whether they could keep their baby, some states didn’t allow abortion, therefore requiring women to give birth to their child. In today’s current issues, abortion is still a controversial subject with millions of people supporting it or not supporting it. Every woman has the right to make changes to her own physical body, and those rights should not be taken away, according to the constitution. In the very famous case in 1973, “Roe v. Wade”, the United States Supreme Court legalized abortion throughout the first trimester of pregnancy. In the article, “Roe’s Pro-Life Legacy”, it is explained how after this movement, the right to abortion, lives have changed and led to lower abortion rates (Sheilds 2013.)

Abortions were widely used in the early eighteen hundreds and kept secret due public scrutineer. Not only were they considered against the law in some places but were risky due to high risk of infection from unsterile equipment used to perform the actions.” Without today’s current technology, maternal and infant mortality rates during childbirth were extraordinarily high. “(National abortion Federation, 2016) as time contained states changed and modified their laws to accommodate political agendas, these opposed to legal abortion had begun to fight absent any stated funded abortion clines. Then there was Roe v. Wade this was the first major Supreme Court battle based on abortion laws and ethics. Roe v. Wade decision of the courts said that they “considered the constitutionality of a Texas statute made it a crime to obtain an abortion except when it was necessary to save the life of the mother”. (Harris, 2014) There was another Supreme Court case that changed the views of the courts based on how they judge the frame work of decision on the trimester model. The ethics involved in this are not just solely left to the mother of the potential life but in the network of people

In our government the topic of abortion causes controversy between politics parties. Before the option of abortion came to place, if a woman was pregnant out of wedlock, they would move to another state and stay there until they gave birth. Another option those women had was adoption or allowed their bay to be raised by one of their relative member. Abortions didn’t become a prominent issue in society until about 1880, even then most states banned it except to save the life of the woman if she was in danger while giving birth caring the baby. Between 1967 and 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court found that a woman’s decision to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester was protected under the “right of privacy…founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty.”

Notably, Judith Thomson differs with the extremist views that deny abortion if it is done by the mother and no third parties involved in the process (Feinberg and Shafer-Landau 30). In her view, third parties and mothers of unborn infants can do nothing as far as abortion is concerned (Feinberg and Shafer-Landau 30, 31). In the same way, the mother is the sole owner and in full control of the child and therefore she has right to do an abortion or not (Feinberg and Shafer-Landau 30, 35). In as far as the mother has full rights to her unborn child and her baby, if she chooses to abort, she should not be punished. Lastly, third parties can do nothing in total regard of abortion and the woman carrying the pregnancy.

Abortion was a lawful alternative before 1973, from that point onward, premature birth was unlawful unless the lady 's well-being was undermined. Presently in 2017, as legitimized premature birth has turned into a regular piece of American life, an alternate side to it has risen. Where ladies once were prematurely ending since they “didn 't need a child”, the reasons being given now are ending up noticeably altogether different. Fetus removal has transformed into something that ladies are being constrained into from spouses unwilling to be fathers, out of dread of the monetary weight, out of frenzy from losing their occupations, out of frenzy from quitting school, or end up noticeably destitute, or out of dread of their folks showing them

for abortion? Their argument was that a woman is guaranteed the right to an abortion by her

When an embryo should be considered an actual human has a variety of answers, “some have sought to reject that the early human embryo is a human being, according to one view, the cells that comprise the early embryo are a bundle of homogeneous cells that exist in the same membrane but do not form a human organism because the cells do not function in a coordinated way to regulate and preserve a single life”.(Siegel)

Bioethical issues include life-prolonging treatments, organ transplantation, medical physician-assisted suicide, abortion, new reproductive technologies, and recent advances in genetics diagnosis and therapy. Such issues often prove to be controversial and can leave us questioning a lot. New medical treatments and technologies often do not come with sufficient precedents to guide our moral reasoning where the life of a woman is in danger. Illegal abortions are common worldwide and carry a high risk of complications, including severe bleeding, infertility, or death often occur. One of the most common reasons for abortions at the latter stage of pregnancy is detection that the fetus has a serious genetic defect. With currently approved technology, these procedures can only be done later in pregnancy. Another common reason is that the woman is young or in denial about her pregnancy, and does not seek an abortion until she is unable to hide it.

[T]ak[ing] the process of reproduction out of the darkness of the womb, into the light of the laboratory. And all of the sudden you can do anything you want with these human embryos and eggs, which couldn 't be done before (Holt).

this time, the baby's heart is beating, major organs are formed and maturing, facial features are

The next topic was what would happen after the birth of these children. In the cases of illegitimate

In 1992, the Tennessee Supreme Court, in the landmark case Davis v. Davis, confronted a marital dispute over the disposition of seven cryopreserved embryos. The couple involved had attempted unsuccessfully for years to conceive through the help of IVF. Frustrated, the couple divorced, leaving the issue of ownership over their stored, fertilized embryos as the source of much debate. The main issue concerned the appropriate legal characterization of the embryos because while the wife viewed the embryos as potential human beings, the husband viewed the embryos as marital property, just as a house or car would be viewed. Ultimately, however, the court concluded that cryopreserved embryos were neither "persons" nor "property", but rather something

In the end, this can all be avoided by the simple decision to be able to choose the baby’s gender.

People interpret the same situations in many different ways. For instance, a married couple can take a great deal of different actions based on their viewpoint and may not always agree with each other to reach a similar goal at hand. Some may take into consideration a procedure dealing with assisted reproductive technology, while the other will feel that the right method will be to pursue an all-natural effort. In some cases, there may even be a combination of both in order to conceive a child and achieving this desire by any means necessary.