Frozen : Frozen Embryo Ownership

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

The topic of abortion is heavily debated. One of the major controversies surrounding abortion is whether or not the embryo is a human life and able to receive the same rights as any other human. Is the embryo mentally developed enough to be considered as a human life? It is medically proven that after conception, the human brain takes many months to develop, so the “personhood” of a fetus cannot begin until about the seventh month.

      Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a 'right      to life.' A piece of protoplasm has no rights--and no life in the human      sense of the term. An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a      potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until      it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the      unborn) body? (Ayn Rand, http://www.abortionisprolife.com/)

An embryo should have the same rights as any other human, being, if a baby is unwanted, go for adoption. “There are thousands of loving families waiting to adopt children”(Source B). Why abort, when you can go for adoption? There are many families out there that will desire to adopt unwanted babies. “Approximately 5 million Americans alive today are adoptees, 2-4 percent of all families have adopted, and 2.5 percent of all children under 18 are adopted”(Source B). Adoption has become more common in the United States, and it is a great solution for those mother who have unwanted pregnancies to not abort their child but to give them for

Intrinsic potential is part of non-identity-preserving in the sense that the fetus and neonate are distinct individuals (Glanon, 70). This case, the potential is intrinsic to the fetus because it is realized from within. Only intrinsic, identity-preserving potential can give a fetus an interest in living and a moral status that make it wrong to kill it. In the case where an embryo created in the IVF process has the same potential for a valuable future is the same argument for any abortion. We knowingly create these embryos and it has potential for life, thus it should not be discarded. In the case with the IVF process several embryos are created and the best is chosen to proceed. Under the idea that all of them have this potential, all the embryos should be saved from all the IVF processes. This would create five to ten times the babies that are wanted from the process which comes with its own complications leading into a morally acceptable approach. The current practice of choosing the best fetuses or specific gender of fetuses, to continue into life makes the practice of selective reduction and IVF immoral. This makes the entire scenario immoral based on the reduction process and knowledge that the fetus or fetuses are of an undesirable gender.

We are living in a new era where technology can help women have babies in unconventional ways. Having children is a personal choice. In some people’s view, government should not be regulating when people should and should not start having a family. The ethical issue is when the parents start applying for governmental benefits after the baby is conceived via In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and born posthumously. When practicing IVF, are we violating God’s will? This paper is to discuss the views of the four candidates interviewed in relation to posthumous conception and delivery, their views on benefits/inheritance entitlement to these babies, and ethical principles and theories in

Only twenty years ago, embryo freezing (cryopreservation) was considered a technique that raised “disturbing,” “extremely difficult,” “incredibly complex,” and even “nightmarish” ethical issues. Currently, however, at least 41 of the 169 infertility clinics in the United States have begun to implement in vitro fertilization protocols (IVF) (Freemann et al., 1986). The number of frozen embryos in this country nearly tripled, from 289 to 824, between 1985 and 1986 (Van Steirteghem and Van Den Abbel, 1988). An estimated ten infants in the U.S. and sixty in the world were born as of 1988 after having been frozen as embryos. The government and professional advisory groups have endorsed embryo

This is great because they would be allowing the embryo to live but at the same time both party will no longer have ties to each other. This would be more ethical as they will give a child a chance to live and they can move on with their lives. Embryo adoption states, “Embryo donation and adoption is a proven successful process allowing families with remaining embryos to donate them to another family desiring to experience pregnancy and childbirth” (Embryo adoption). Another scenario could be if Michelle and Brian get into an accident without signing a consent form as to what should happen to the embryos. I think the decision should go to the next of kin to the couple and let the family decide what to do with the

As stated earlier, Christians must evaluate the different methods of medical technology in order to identify the moral and ethical ramifications of certain medical procedures. I believe that any procedure that forces a couple to decide what is to be done with “leftover” embryos should not be used. However, there are some procedures such as IUI and IVF that utilize

Even the language of conception and gestation have been hijacked by politics and religious fundamentalists. All unborn are called “fetuses.” This clearly shows the ignorance of basic human biology. The newly fertilized egg is a zygote --- not a fetus and not a human being. It is a few cells with potential but no distinguishing characteristics and no ability to feel anything. A zygote becomes a blastocyst, which is a zygote that has reached a certain number of cells but has not yet stuck to the uterine walls. Five weeks after conception, snug in the uterine tissue it becomes an embryo. It does not become a fetus until it is ten weeks old and has ears and some facial features. Society laughs at people who call zebras “horses” and yet tolerates the word fetus for zygote, blastocyst and embryo. Getting the language right can help laypeople realize that a zygote or blastocyst is not a baby.

There are also embryos known as “spare” embryos. These embryos are known to be the ones that are not being used for anything. They have no use. Individuals have stored or donated these embryos for future use. However, if these embryos are not used, then they will be thrown away or be discarded. The spare embryos are the embryos that have been kept frozen and can longer be used. These “spare” embryos could be used by scientists to further the ESC research.

An issue that has caused great legal debate is the freezing of eggs and embryos. Freezing allows savings eggs or embryos for later implantation; not all are used. However, frozen embryos and eggs generally have a lower success rate. The question arises of what happens to them if the couple decides to divorce, or one or both of them dies? These situations have been decided through court determinations. In 1987, the status of frozen embryos was brought before the Victorian courts with the case of Mr and Mrs Rios, who had died in a plane crash. The embryos from Mr and Mrs Rios had been frozen in 1981. There were many ethical and moral concerns regarding this case. Should the embryos remain frozen indefinitely, be donated, or kept for research? The Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act

The principle of nonmaleficence, to do no harm, in reproductive technology can be applied to the prospective parents and the prospective child-the embryo. The procedures involved in attempting to impregnate a woman can be physically and emotionally damaging, but rewarding if done successfully. But the parties must first determine to what extent and at what cost will they risk to achieve their ultimate goal. It would cause great harm physically to the embryos if there were multiple unsuccessful attempts, but many would argue that the end outweighs the means, that it is worth it if the result was a viable pregnancy and healthy child.

A woman has a right to her own body is an idea more and more women are realizing, but that idea ignores the unborn child's right to his or her own body. Never, in modern times, has the state granted to one citizen the right to have another killed in order to solve their personal, social, or economic problems. The embryo is its own being that should have it's own rights to protect it. The zygote is a unique genetic being.

IVF raises many of these difficult moral issues. If the above conceptions about the nature of ethics were correct, however, discussion of these issues would either be futile (because morality is a matter of personal choice or opinion) or superfluous (because morality is what a divine or secular authority says it is) (Walters 23). In this paper, I want to suggest that it is not only possible, but also necessary to inquire into the ethics of such practices as IVF because the fact that we can do something does not mean that we ought to do it.