The Question of Embryos and Legal Status

What constitutes 'a person' under the law? At first glance, this seems such a simple question; however, the more I think about this, and the more I investigate, I am realizing that there is not a clear answer. There clearly has not been a consensus amongst the legal and scientific communities.

Recently the Los Angeles Times examined the issues surrounding leftover frozen embryos. Many couples in the United States with frozen embryos leftover from fertility treatments are “finding themselves ensnared in a debate about when life begins”. These couples have three choices: discard them, donate them to research or donate them to another couple for potential pregnancy. There are initiatives in several states that seek to protect embryos. One of these initiatives defines a fertilized egg as a person in the state constitution (Colorado). Indiana lawmakers are proposing an allowance for leftover frozen embryos to be adopted for implantation by another couple. New Jersey legislators have proposed allowing unused embryos to become wards of the state, and Georgia and West Virginia are considering legislations that would grant embryos “personhood status”. This is a very slippery slope; for, if the Supreme Court allows these proposals, one would be in a position to say all abortions must stop.

Roe v. Wade is the historic Supreme Court decision overturning a Texas interpretation of abortion law and making abortion legal in the United States. The Roe v. Wade decision held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without restriction based on the right to privacy. At the time of this decision, it was clear that an embryo was not a “person”, or abortion would have been “murder”; thus illegal. In Davis v. Davis the lower court found that “human embryos are not property, and human life begins at conception”. However, the Supreme Court of Tennessee overruled this by saying something quite different, that embryos occupied a special status of “quasi-property”. Most recently, the Oregon Court of Appeals has ordered six frozen embryos be destroyed after ruling they can be treated as personal property in a divorce.

So, in essence, it remains unclear in the scientific world “when life begins”, but in the “legal world” it is quite clear that embryos are not “persons under the law” (yet). In fact, at this time it appears embryos are simply “property”! Did I answer my own question? Embryos are life forms, but not persons?

What do you see in this picture?

I'm fascinated by how pop culture shapes, and is shaped by, our society's view of bioethical issues. Here's the Mother's Day cover of the New Yorker.

It shows a woman peering gooily into a shop window, mooning over a warm and wriggling litter of--wait for it--not puppies, but diapered babies. Meanwhile, her male companion tries to drag her away from the window, eyes rolled heavenward in the universal male posture of "Not this again!"

There's a lot to unpack here, beginning with the idea that women view motherhood the same way they view a new pair of shoes; that men view women's desires to become mothers with the same exasperation as they view the shoe-buying habits some of us have; that babies are like puppies (warm, fuzzy, commodities)....

You can play too! What other assumptions and analogies are implied here?

Yes or No to In Vitro?

The Women's Bioethics Project recently had the opportunity to work with web TV hosts and producers Whitney Keyes and Wyatt Bardouille.  They interviewed one of our book club non-fiction authors, Beth Kohl, about her personal experience with assisted reproductive technologies.  With engaging humor and wit, Whitney, Wyatt and Beth explore the reality of the ART process as well as some of the ethical implications.  Sometimes we get lost in the complexity of ethical debates and forget that these issues affect real people with real stories. Narrative matters.

 

You can watch the segment "Yes or No to In Vitro?" here.  

Boys Suck: Science Proves It

Evolutionary biologist Virpi Lummaa has discovered that Finnish women in previous generations suffered a variety of adverse effects when they bore and raised sons.

Among the impacts: a reduced lifespan, greater vulnerability to disease due to higher testosterone exposure during pregnancy, daughters who were less likely to reproduce, and smaller subsequent children. Additionally, having a grandmother around was more helpful than having a grandfather (probably because she helped with childrearing while he just sat around and ate food).

While modern reproductive technologies have mitigated a lot of the effects seen in pre-industrial families, it is still intriguing to consider these impacts in light of the strong cultural bias favoring the bearing of sons. Perhaps it is a type of "peacock effect", whereby the individuals who still thrive in the face of handicapping or indulging in risky behavior are considered stronger and more robust. Or, as my mother asserts, the value balances out an apparent difference in general robustness and health between male and female young, where males often are weaker to start with.

Of course, having too many sons can be evolutionarily disadvantageous too...

Removing the need for men?

From the Daily Mail, a scientific breakthrough with a technique will help lead to new treatments for infertility, but may render the male partner obsolete in reproduction: British scientists discover how to turn women's bone marrow into sperm.

The comments to the article range from humor (But without men, who would mow the lawn?) to outrage (What is it coming to, the world has gone totally mad...) But I can think of several reasons why this won't render males obsolete -- first, I'm really rather fond of the male I'm married to, and secondly, there is nothing that indicates that the 'new' way' is more fun than the 'old way'. Also, I guess I also to like think of my life partner as something far more than a mere tool for reproduction; that our union is something that has contributed to our personal and spiritual growth.