Embryo as Persons Law on Embryos Corporations and Embryos Egg Donor Sperm Donor do no Harm – Yes

IF CORPORATIONS ARE LEGAL PERSONS UNDER THE LAW – WHY NOT EMBRYOS.

Since personhood is a legal designation that assigns certain rights under the law, personhood can be granted to entities that are not human. Were this not true, corporations would not be persons under the law. But, corporations are legal persons so why not embryos?

When a sperm penetrates an egg, a new and separate creature is formed. The new creature, while carrying DNA of both the egg and sperm, is chromosomally distinct. A totally new and different creature. Not a clone of one or the other. In this way, and as an example, eyes – in humans – can be different in color from the eye color of the sperm and egg provider. This is because of how the chromosomal pool is disbursed, while gene carrying the chromosome is recessive or dominant and other elements of the creative process. In this way, the mother and father are said to have “created” a new child. However, since mother and father are not the designers of the method by which the creation actually takes life and self determines, the term “creator” of the human species remains debated to this day. The mother and father may have provided the egg and the sperm to a fertility clinic. This is called a “donation” to the clinic whether the parties are married or single.

When the creature takes on the separate identity but carries the DNA of the egg and sperm provider, that creature is designated by the science community to be of the same species as the egg and sperm provider. In the human species, sociologists and psychologist call the humans who provide the egg and sperm the mother and the father. The rise of technological terms to identify the mother and father of the new human creature have added to the terminology. Though reproductive technologies might call upon a mother and a father to donate eggs and sperm or anonymous 3d party male or females might do the same thing, once the egg and sperm of human unite, the parents of the embryo are still named the mother and the father.

In so far as mothers and fathers are identified as humans under the law, then certain rights adhere to them as human beings. One of the many rights that adhere to Mom and Dad is the right to have no harm done to them without those who do the harm subject to answering to a court. With those protections in place, the new creature cannot be manipulated except in ways already identified in the Hippocratic Oath. Even the new Mom and Dad could not order the engineering of a sex change for their own purposes. However, genetic health of the new creature could be maintained by Mom and Dad under the “do no harm” dictate that the Hippocratic Oath of the medical professional who might be assigned to bring the embryo into it’s next developmental stage.

The only thing that seems to interrupt the logical conclusion of people of good will who want to protect a developing generation in the embryonic stage seems to be other interest of third parties who can vote for or against any legislator who would propose such a thing. So, corporations are named persons and embryo’s are not. It is not because it does not make sense in any legal way. It is a dangerous territory, however, for those who stand for election once proposing such a thing.