At the beginning of the class, I quickly learned the skills I needed to develop to get through. First, I need to get out of leaning on the “5 paragraph” method I learned in high school. Throughout the class, I learned how to flow when writing. Now I try to write in ways that make more sense together. In doing so, I even learned how to transition better when writing. Second, I had to become better at not only finding sources but reading them. I learned how to find sources in school. However, most of those sources were on google. Being in this class, I learned about sites such as pub med and became more knowledgeable about my school’s resources online.
Furthermore, when it came to reading the articles in class, I found it difficult to understand. I learned to break down the articles and look for what they were trying to say. The articles eventually became easier to understand and even more exciting. While reading those articles, they also gave me much insight into audience and genre. I had to remember who the articles I was reading were written for. For example, lab reports tend to be written in a language that fellow people, such as the person writing, would understand. So, there will be things I do not understand. When it came to my writing, I tried to remember that I was writing for classmates, which played a role in peer review. I need to make sure they understood it enough so that they could explain it to someone else. Not only to make sure it is understandable but also to ensure I received constructive feedback. I think overall; I achieved most of my goals. I even became better at stating analysis. I learned how to explain what the evidence means and how it relates to the topic instead of just restating my evidence.

Morgan Carter

03/08/2020

Personhood, by definition, is the condition of being a person. The concept around personhood is a very controversial topic that is tied in with legal, scientific, and religious ideas of what a person is. This has continued to be an international debate for decades. It has been brought up during slavery, civil rights, women’s right, and so on. However, now in the past couple of years, the debate has been about abortion, fetal rights, and reproductive rights. According to the law, only a natural person or legal personality has privileges, fairness, and liabilities. So what is a person, and should zygotes be giving legal personhood?

In 2017, William Neaves wrote an article about the religious outlook on the debate. He researched how religious beliefs about personhood influence how they view embryos. This article, The status of the human embryo in various religions, explores the ideas of different faiths see human embryos.

Neaves begins with the Roman Catholic Church, whose ideas have changed dramatically over time. Today they believe that “inception of human personhood coincides with fertilization of an egg by a sperm (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2017).” However, in the past, the Church recognized personhood after 40 days and even allowed abortions.

Thomas Aquinas, a 13th-century theologian, believed that before an embryo, there was a “vegetative soul” and then a “sensitive soul.” Aquinas believed that “God gave rational souls

only to human beings and that this occurred around day 40 of development…” This idea continued well into the early 14th century. Following this, Robert Hooke and Anthony van Leeuwenhoek after observations of sperm cells with microscopes. They conclude that “tiny humans” we’re inside of the sperm head.

With all that being said today, the Roman Catholic Church beliefs that all life begins at conception and deserves protection.

Buddhist suppose an embryo is a person once it is embedded in the uterus, and research can be in vitro. The spokesperson for the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism stated, “But how do we understand at what point consciousness enters the embryo? This is problematic. A fetus, which is becoming a human, is already a sentient being. But a fertilized egg may actually bifurcate into 8, 16, 32, 64 cells and become an embryo, and yet be naturally aborted and never become a human being. This is why I feel that for the formation of life, for something to become a human, something more is needed than fertilized eggs. “

While it is clear that more research must be and has been done, there still isn’t quite a consensus. Scott Gilbert, Howard A. Schneiderman Professor of biology, said in an interview, “I really can’t tell you when personhood begins, but I can say with absolute certainty that there’s no consensus among scientists.”

Gilbert explains that some scientist believes that someone is given personhood after fertilization when the sperm and egg combine. Some scientists think that it happens on day 14 ( the embryo

can no longer become twins or triplets), and some will say that it is around the 4th month when the personhood should be received.

He highlights the danger of the personhood movement is that “the equation works both ways.” He continues to state that he thinks the real question is, “what or who do you rescue? The zygotes, the blastocysts, are still what.”

In another 2017, the authors examine the causes and consequences of an embryo being considered a person. The authors make it clear that the law only protects things and persons. The capability of a fetus being a person is not definite because it doesn’t clarify if they should be treated as people of things. In some European countries and even some states in the U.S., they treat embryos as things when the “cryogenic embryos are donated to other couples.” They are given the same rules and regulations for adoption as any child being adopted, and they also have equal rights as an abandoned child in case of embryo abandonment.

Thus, the abandoned embryos will be under the care of the state, which should find them an adoptive family. This solution differs from the one applied in the countries, which do not recognize the status of the person of the human embryo.

“The embryo cannot have legal status, because it is not regulated the problem of its nature.” In another 2017, the authors examine the causes and consequences of an embryo being considered a person. Ann Warren states to qualify as a person, and you must have conscientiousness and capacity for pain, reasoning, self-motivated activity, the ability to communicate, and self-awareness, meaning an embryo can’t be a person.

The next step is to figure out whose job it is to give personhood. The legislator can’t provide the embryo personhood because they need to stay “neutral.” To figure out the real answer, the scientist would have to be allowed to research and examine embryo; however, if such research is conducted, it will go against the ethical and legal standards of the nation at hand. Judges can’t either, although they do give it personhood or not when they make verdicts that apply or do not apply to the embryo at hand. Lastly, the parent seems to be the definitive factor in deciding if a fetus is protected under the law or not. “Even if the legislations do not apply the right to life of an embryo, this is not defined and always treated as it is a thing…”

It is clear that the idea of legal status for an embryo is still very controversial, and there seems to be no solution. “. No matter what solution we use, the consequences were huge.” An Alabama abortion clinic is being sued because his girlfriend got an abortion after being pregnant for six weeks without his knowledge. The court recognized the fetus as a plaintiff, and the father was representative on behalf of the fetus.

Morgan Carter

04/22/2020

Embryo adoption is growing. For instance, in 2016, the latest year for which empirical data is available, findings by both CDC (2018) and Lester (2019) indicate that more than 260,000 in vitro fertilization (IVF) were attempted in the United States. Of these attempts, over 150,000 resulted in direct transfers of embryos – either from fresh donors or cryopreserved surplus. Reliable data about the number of frozen or cryopreserved embryos is lacking, but studies estimate the total at between 600,000 and 1,000,000 in the United States alone, with an additional 20,000 embryos being added every year (Clark, 2014; Lester, 2019). In fact, between 2000 and 2016, more than 2 million transfers of embryos were recorded by the CDC in the United States. Of these, only about 16,000 were donor embryos with the remaining (over 99%) coming from the growing depositories of unused frozen embryos. The number of donor transfers per year nevertheless rose rapidly over the same period. It increased from less than 334 in 2004 to over 1,940 in 2014 – and findings show that it is continuing to increase (Lester, 2019). Embryo adoption has given donated embryos a chance to become babies and proven to be a viable alternative for treating infertility among assisted reproduction techniques (ARTs), thus providing other couples with the opportunity to experience pregnancy as well as give birth and raise a child. However, the procedure is getting entangled in a never-ending ethical and legal debate. Embryos, whether freshly donated or cryopreserved in a “frozen limbo,” are obviously living – as evinced by their development and potential ultimate delivery as viable offspring. But then again, in their present state, do embryos, which comprises only of a few cells represent human tissue or an individual human being – a person worthy not just of dignity, but also respect and legal protections? This article argues in the affirmative, and the following is why.

Infertility is a persistent and growing problem worldwide. In the United States, 2.1 million married couples (or about 5 million people) are estimated to be affected by infertility (Clark, 2014). Infertility, defined herein as failure to conceive following a year-long period of unprotected sex, is a consequence of several factors – 40% of which are due to male factors, another 40% due to female factors, and the remaining 20% are a combination of both or unknown origin (Clark, 2014). The toll of infertility is complex and multifarious, and couples are

affected psychologically, physiologically, and even financially. The ethical and legal burden of it is also fundamental. Available data show that between 85% and 95% of infertile couples tend to receive conventional treatment, and between 10% and 15% are more likely to become candidates for various forms of ARTs to help them get pregnant and have their own biological children. IVF is the most widely used procedure, and according to Clark (2014), it accounts for as much as 99% of ART.

Since it was introduced to the world way back in 1978 with the successful implantation and subsequent birth of Louise Brown, in Cambridge, United Kingdom, IVF has grown to become an established mainstream scientific treatment for several forms of human infertility (Keenan, 2011). As a medical practice, IVF entails the creation of a human preimplantation embryo by the union of male sperm and female ova in the lab. The principal objective of this laboratory procedure is to accord affected patients with the opportunity to have children using either own eggs and sperms or from donors. It is designed to result in pregnancy when other treatment options have either failed or are inappropriate – and since its inception has been effective in helping infertile couples have children (Keenan, 2011). The procedure is, however, still inefficient and costly. One key aspect of the inefficiency is that IVF has resulted in numerous cryopreserved embryos with no definitive plan for disposition. It has been estimated that since the late’70s, there are 500,000 plus embryos frozen and stored with about 20,000 being added every year (Clark, 2014).

Freezing the embryos has facilitated the limitation of the total number of embryos transferrable to a woman’s uterus – a phenomenon that has also decreased the average number of multiple gestations. Most importantly, the freezing of embryos has allowed couples to preserve their frozen embryos for use in the future, especially if the initial cycles have proven unsuccessful. Besides being effective, the freezing of embryos also lowers the cost of subsequent IVF procedures. The issue, however, has been what to do with the surplus frozen embryos, which has been increasing in number. A variety of options have been proposed. The embryos could be unfrozen and then destroyed. They could also be cryopreserved indefinitely, used for scientific research, or offered for adoption/donation. Whereas all these alternatives present significant problems, the adoption option has arguably stirred the most controversy, medically, legally, and more so, ethically (Clark, 2014).

Medically, for instance, the lifespan and survivability of a cryopreserved embryo are unknown. The potential effects of the freezing process on the development and quality of the embryo if brought to term is also less understood. Studies, such as Clark, (2014) have established that babies conceived through IVF tend to be born with major congenital disorders and are twice as likely to be underweight compared to babies conceived naturally. Tarkan (2008) reveals that of the IVF twins born in 2004, 56% weighed less than 5.5 pounds, while 65% were born prematurely. Besides elevating the odds of preterm births and infant mortality, IVF has also been associated with long-term health complications such as pre-eclampsia, C-section, and gestational diabetes. With a 10-25% implantation rate, the survival rate for implanted embryos is another issue. Successful birth rate varies from 11% for women aged 40 and above and 35% for those under the age of 35 (Clark, 2014). These figures show that several IVF embryos do not survive, thereby requiring multiple transfers per cycle and numerous cycles.  

Legally, the connotational meaning of the terms “adoption” and “donation” remains elusive and highly divisive (Kindregan Jr. & McBrien, 2004; Clark, 2014; Patterson, 2015). There is also no clearly set federal laws regarding the legal caveats of embryo adoption. Indeed, according to Kindregan Jr. and McBrien (2004), the term “embryo adoption” is both ambiguous and misleading. This is because it connotes that the procedure for donating an embryo is based and governed by adoption laws. Also misleading is the implication that the donee and donor couples voluntarily partake in the frequent practice of criminal background checks and home investigations to ascertain parental fitness as it usually occurs in child adoption processes. “Embryo donation,” on the other hand, has been used to connote a non-commercial transfer of embryo ownership, for which no explicit authorization is required. The donation, is nevertheless, a property concept, and some have expressed reservations against substituting property law categories for traditional parentage as a way of statutorily protecting the parties involved in the transaction (Kindregan Jr. & McBrien, 2004). Regardless, the state, as well as the Uniform Adoption Act (UAA), nullifies the biological parents’ consent to adopt an embryo.

Ethically, embryo adoption continues to stir up significant moral controversy. Currently, the bioethical debate has centered on the notion of radical environmentalism, which elevates nature to the highest possible level of determinism. For proponents holding this perspective, cryopreserved embryos are put at equal footing with other frozen floral and faunal species with bias or particularly preferred status. Efforts are, however, directed towards ecological concerns. Other secondary ethical issues raised by the procedure regards the matters of appropriateness (or lack thereof) of knowledge stewardship, the commodification of medical practice, social justice, right of privacy, and even discrimination – showing partiality in selecting, which embryo to donate and transplant (Keenan, 2011). Another popular view is the theistic perspective. For theists, human life is sacred and deserving of both dignity and respect, from syngamy, in the few hours following fertilization. This view is Keenan’s (2011) argument and is the basis upon which the assertion that a one-celled embryo is indeed a person is centered. Thus, and despite the numerous arguments to the contrary, embryo adoption is necessary and ethical. Several reasons attest to this conclusion.

First, embryo-donation is an effective family-building option for persons affected with infertility. Such persons include women suffering from premature ovarian failure or is irresponsive to conventional ovarian stimulation. The technique has also proven effective for men suffering impairment in gamete production, thus providing them with an opportunity to conceive, experience pregnancy, bring forth, and raise children (Söderström-Anttila et al., 2001). Moreover, embryo donation has been indicated for couples carrying hereditary conditions that instigate significant morbidity in the child (Söderström-Anttila et al., 2001). Second, and besides fulfilling a person or couple’s desire to have a child, embryo adoption is also present significant financial benefits (Kaminsky, 2014). For example, according to Lester (2019), the transfer of donated embryos is significantly cheap compared to virtually any alternative to natural pregnancy. The cost for adopting a child can run into several thousand dollars, while a single IVF round can go at between $12,000 and $17,000. In contrast, the donation of embryos averages approximately $8,000, making it viable and affordable to most individuals. Keenan (2011) echoes similar sentiments, noting that the cost for embryo adoption is about $7,800. This amount compares to nearly $12,000 for local traditional adoption and around twice as much ($15,000) for an IVF cycle.

Third, embryo donation has grown since 1978 to become of one of the most accepted methods in ARTs in several parts across the globe, including the US, Australia, and in several most EU countries like Spain, Finland, the UK, Belgium, and Russia (Söderström-Anttila et al., 2001). In addition, embryo adoption is fast becoming a preferred option for most people not just because of the potential to grade the embryo for their viability but because it allows the parents-to-be to choose the gender as well as the appearance of their baby. It also allows the embryo to be genetically tested for diseases and chromosomal abnormalities, which is critical for eliminating congenital germline disorders as well as saving both the parents and the child from the disadvantages that come with such disorders in later life.

Perhaps the most potent argument in favor of embryo adoption is Patterson’s (2015) deliberation on the same. Addressing the morality of saving a frozen embryo, the researcher argues that moving the embryo from the freezer into the nurturing environment of a woman’s womb does not violate or contravene the transmission of life. It similarly does not intrude upon the good of matrimony nor the relationship between the potential mother and the baby. This is because the adoption entails no sexual act. Besides, the baby is neither marital nor a substitute for marital association (Patterson, 2015). The act of embryo adoption, therefore, does not involve fertilization. This procedure has already been attained in the lab. As such, the good of life transmission and the good of marriage exuded by the act does not feature. In fact, to further highlight the appropriateness of embryo adoption, Patterson (2015) suggests that the procedure is comparable to a mother nursing a foundling conceived out of marriage, abandoned, but rescued by a suitable individual or partner. Thus, and despite the ongoing legal and ethical debate on the issue, it can be argued, and rightly so, that embryo adoption is both essential and ethical.

This article has examined, albeit briefly, the arguments for and against the practice of embryo adoption. Sentiments and perspectives on the notion are diverse and conflicting. It is found that depending on an individual’s supposition about when human life potentially begins, three outcomes are possible. First, embryos are persons. Second, in their state, embryos are properties (governed by property rights). Third, that embryos are budding human life capable of growing and attaining satisfactory maturity and functional human ability to qualify. Subsequently, the article has established that the case in favor of embryo adoption seems to present the superior case – cryopreserved embryos are nascent biological life, human in both origin and destination.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2018). 2016 Assisted Reproductive Technology National Summary Report. US Dept of Health and Human Services, Atlanta (GA). https://www.cdc.gov/art/pdf/2016-report/ART-2016-National-Summary-Report.pdf

Clark, P. A. (2014). Ethical Implications of Embryo Adoption. In C. Atwood & S. V. Meethal (Eds.), Pluripotent stem cell biology: Advances in mechanisms, methods and models. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/58592

Kaminsky, M. (2014, July 9). Legal aspects of frozen embryo adoption. Retrieved May 11, 2020, from https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/legal-aspects-of-frozen-embryo-adoption

Keenan, J. (2011). National Embryo Donation Academy Reference Manual. B. D. Motto (Ed.). National Embryo Donation Academy (NEDA). https://www.embryodonation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/webManual.pdf

Kindregan Jr., C. P., & McBrien, M. (2004). Embryo Donation: Unresolved Legal Issues in the Transfer of Surplus Cryopreserved Embryos. Villanova Law Review, 49(1), 170-205. https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1254&context=vlr

Lester, C. (2019, February 17). Embryo ‘Adoption’ Is Growing, but It’s Getting Tangled in the Abortion Debate. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/17/health/embryo-adoption-donated-snowflake.html

Patterson, C. (2015). Embryo adoption: Some further considerations. The Linacre Quarterly, 82(1), 34-48. https://doi.org/10.1179/2050854914y.0000000029

Söderström-Anttila, V., Foudila, T., Ripatti, U., & Siegberg, R. (2001). Embryo donation: Outcome and attitudes among embryo donors and recipients. Human Reproduction, 16(6), 1120-1128. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/16.6.1120

Tarkan, L. (2008, November 9). Lowering odds of multiple births. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/health/19iht-19multiples.10170147.html

Morgan Carter

February 2nd, 2020

Her

Hi, my name is Morgan Carter. I am 18 years old and a freshman at CCNY. I am an only child and growing up it was always just me and my mother. We are the same sign and are birthdays 19 days apart. So you can imagine that we bump heads quite often. In fact, we are almost complete opposites. She is a scholar, elegant, graceful and strong. She’s kind of like Claire Huxtable. Then there’s me I am into hip-hop, tattoos, piercings, etc. In fact, the only thing among the few things we have in common is that we are very smart. In fact, I kind of believe she forced me to be smart to keep up with her. With that being said she is my best friend and she’s taught me everything I know. She has molded me into the independent go-getter I am. She used to tell me this story of me being in the ICU and how she sat next to me for 3 days and wouldn’t move in order to be sure that I was ok.

So you can imagine my shock and pain when she got breast cancer. I don’t quite remember how old I was but I do remember that time. Nobody was around it was me and her. Imagine being a young girl and a woman who breaks her back and kills it every day is sick. In fact I remember when she had to get surgery. I was crying in the hospital so much. I was hysterical. My mother was about to go into something I couldn’t understand, something I couldn’t help her with, something I couldn’t experience with her and I was alone. Remember I said my mother was my best friend, well being the mother she is she said she wasn’t going into surgery until someone came and got me to make sure I was ok. I felt empty I did everything with my mom. I was a little girl I was sure she was going to die. I think that’s the day I realized I wanted to help. I didn’t know who I wanted to help but I knew it was something there.

When I turned about 11 my cousin Jesiah was born and when she first came home I told them to take her back. She ended up growing on me and now she’s my little sister. She has seizures and I don’t know why but I feel like I’m her protector so I have to make sure she’s ok at all times. Then her sister Makayla came and I realized I am a “big sister” so I need to be great. With that being said I would like to become either an OB/GYN or a pediatrician. I am surrounded by women and girls who I love. Not being able to help these woman pushes me to help others. There is a little girl whose mother is like mine and she needs help and I will help her. If I can help in any way possible I can and I will.

So currently I am working towards becoming an OB/GYN, however, my plan b is to become a physician assistant. After my general studies, I may go to pace to explore their medical programs. I am also looking into NYU, so depending on the course of my undergrad that will determine my course of action. I have always been a people person so I think a job where I must directly interact with others is great. I also am very creative and love thinking outside the box and that’s what science is. You have to think outside the box and think differently in order to solve the problem. Also, I love Greys Anatomy and while I am fully aware that it is fake it drove me to explore science and make a difference.