The Identity and Moral Status of the Human Embryo

For a long time, reproduction was something humans had little or no control over. With the advancement of biotechnology, however, the ethical issues concerning the moral status of the human embryo have assumed a new dimension. The process of IFV-ET has exposed the embryo to risk and abuse.

In-Vitro Fertilisation and Embryo Transplant

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Superovulation Surgical removal of mature ova Addition of sperm cells Fertilisation in petri-dish Genetic screening of fertilised ova Implantation in the womb (4-5 ova)

IVF

ET

There are 2 major problems with the ET procedure the first being that it has a success rate of only 25%, and the second being that the process creates surplus embryos which end up being frozen in liquid nitrogen. In 1994, a law was passed giving fertility clinics the right to dispose of embryos not claimed within a period of 5 years. As a result, 3330 embryos were destroyed in 1996 after not being claimed by their parents. These issues give rise to the question: where does human life begin? What is the nature of the human embryo? Can we experiment on embryos, if it proves to be beneficial to mankind? Can we refrain from implanting embryos, and can we destroy them?

If we ask where does human life begin, we can come up with various answers. Biologists would argue that scientifically life starts at fertilisation. Ethics, however, raises further questions. Ethics asks: is a pre-embryo a potential person, or a person with potential? In other words, what is the minimum requirement which has to be satisfied for an entity to be classified as a person?

From Biological Data to Philosophical Reflection

It is not enough to characterise the human zygote as just genetic/biological material, since the answer is not specific enough. Therefore it must be said that the embryo is a unique individual from the start.

The Embryo as a Unique Individual from the Start

Every human life begins where the body begins, and the body begins with the fusion of gametes from both parents. 2 sets of biological data confirm this. The first is that at fertilisation genetic uniqueness is established a totally new biological system, different to that of the sperm and ova, is created. The second is that the one-celled embryo becomes a complete organism through successive and interconnected steps, characterised by coordination, continuity and gradualness. These 2 facts lead to the conclusion that the fertilised ovum, a new human cell, is essentially a new human person.

The Argument from Potentiality

Development into a person. (Radical)

Development of an embryo

Development of a person. (Conservative)

The process of development of the human zygote can be described in 2 different ways development into a person or development of a person. The basic difference between the 2 interpretations lies in what the term potentially is really taken to mean and what is ultimately valued in human beings.

Development into a Person

According to this perspective, at fertilisation the pre-embryo is a human being, but only potentially a human person. According to this perspective, one can experiment or dispose of embryos, since they are only potential persons. A problem arises with this view if the embryo is not a person from the start, at which point does it become a person? In response to the problem, the radical school uses John Lockes definition of personhood. According to Locke, a person is an organism possessing the concept of self as a continuing subject of experience and other mental states, and believing that it is itself such a continuing entity. This perspective gives rise to another problem if we restrict the definition of personhood to self-consciousness, then one can easily justify the killing of newborns, since they are not fully self-conscious.

Development of a Person
According to this perspective, the embryo is both a human being and a human person at conception. Conservatives argue that the definition of personhood cannot be restricted to selfconsciousness. But one may rightly question if its not self-consciousness that makes us persons, what does? In response, the conservative school argues that personhood is not something acquired by the human being the human being is a human person by nature. This argument may in turn be discussed in light of 2 principals: the principal of unity (the embryo is 1 entity, not a human being with personhood added to it), and potentiality (at fertilisation, the human person has an in-built potential to develop into an adult).

Arguments for and against the View that a Human Person Begins at Fertilisation
During the 1980s, the British government was trying to decide on legislation concerning the moral status of the human embryo, and appointed a committee, chaired by Mary Warnock, to help. The Warnock report, the brainchild of the committee, suggested that embryos can be experimented upon or destroyed, but only before the 15th day after fertilisation. This 14-day period was suggested because on the 15th day of development the Primitive Streak (beginning of a spinal cord) appears. The 1st argument against the view that a human person begins at fertilisation says that during this 14-day period, identical twinning may still occur, and therefore the zygote is not

necessarily a genetically unique individual from the start. The 2nd argument states that genetic individuality starts at fertilisation, but it is totally different to developmental individuality, which starts with the Primitive Streak. Conservatives counter these arguments by stating that the appearance of the Primitive Streak is not the beginning of individualism, only the first visible manifestation of it. The unique genetic coding that defines the development of the Primitive Streak (or Streaks) is created upon fertilisation. This code is an integral part of the developing organism, and not just a disposable blueprint, guiding all stages of its development. Twinning does not nullify this fact and remove the genetic codes uniqueness, and therefore twins are just individuals who happen to share the same genetic code. A counter-argument by the radical group states that just because an embryo can undergo changes, this does not mean it will actually do so. Also, if all that has potential to become a human being is treated as being morally significant, the same moral status as an embryo has to be awarded to sperm and ova. Conservatives counter these new arguments by stating that an embryo should be protected because of its innate uniqueness, and not because of the changes it undergoes or might undergo. They also make a distinction between the potentiality present in sperm and ova and the potentiality present in a fertilised embryo. Whatever has the potential to become an embryo is not identical to the potential of an already existing embryo.

Kant vs. Utilitarianism

Kantian ethics argues that it is never justifiable to experiment on embryos or destroy them. This is because his Categorical Imperative argues that we should act in such a way that you always treat a human being as ends and never as means. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, states that respect for the human being is not of major importance. This is due to the fact that Utilitarians argue for the greater good the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Utilitarianism argues that embryo research may cause pleasure to the infertile or those interested in reducing genetic defects, and therefore is worth the sacrifice of a few embryos.