Frozen embryos and the couples who make them

Debate and concerns over frozen embryos and assisted reproduction have been churning for several years now. However, there is no resolution on the horizon. The issues are deeply personal, ethical, and often legal. The range of feelings and opinions is captured well in this L.A. Times article. For many couples with embryos they no longer want or need, the compromise between implanting the embryos for pregnancy and destroying them is donating them for research. But such a decision is not straight-forward. Many in the political arena wish to elevate embryos to a status (nearly) equal to full personhood.

An excerpt:

"People are not quite sure where this set of issues belongs," says Yuval Levin, bioethics director for the Ethics and Public Policy Center, an ecumenical think tank in Washington that publishes the New Atlantis. "To some it's an element of the abortion debate. For other people it has to do with science and medicine. We've never really thought through what the moral status of the embryo is."

That's beginning to happen. The proposed Colorado amendment states, "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include any human from the time of fertilization." If it is passed, the courts would have to interpret the meaning of those words, says Kristi Burton, sponsor of the initiative and founder of Colorado for Equal Rights, which focuses on the rights of unborn children. The goal of the amendment, says Burton, a college student, "is to respect and protect all life."

Fertility advocates are skeptical that "personhood laws" wouldn't limit their choices for reproductive healthcare. In August, Resolve released a statement opposing the Colorado amendment.

"The motivation is abortion," says R. Alta Charo, a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. "If the Supreme Court allows states to declare embryos as personhood, you would be in a position to say immediately that all abortions have to stop."

(Photo by cyancey; used by permission.)