Do fertilized embryos have a right to life? | The Tylt

FINAL RESULTS
Culture
Do fertilized embryos have a right to life?
#EmbryosHaveRights
A festive crown for the winner
#EmbryosArentPeople

Pro-life advocates argue embryos have the potential for life and as such, should not be destroyed. Others see embryos as nothing more than a couple of cells—far from something that approaches the complexity of multi-cellular life, let alone humans. What do you think? Vote now! 

Dataviz
Real-time Voting
Do fertilized embryos have a right to life?
#EmbryosHaveRights
#EmbryosArentPeople

To be clear, this is what we're talking about when we talk about a fertilized embryo. The answer to the question boils down to how someone defines what 'life' is, and when it begins. To some, life begins at the moment of conception. To others, it is viability outside the womb. 

imageSupportingMedia
#EmbryosHaveRights

People who think embryos have a right to life argue life begins at conception. To them, the potential for life is something that is sacred. Embryos all have the potential to become human beings and should be cherished and treated with the respect given to any living thing. 

But embryos are still human beings.

These embryos already have their own unique DNA: half Vergara’s and half Loeb’s. They are living, and capable of growth. They contain within their very very tiny selves all the components necessary to grow into a baby, a toddler, a teen, an adult.

Yes, they need the right resources to grow, like a womb. But all of us need the right resources to continue living. If someone died of starvation, we wouldn’t say they stopped being human; we’d say they’d been deprived of an essential ingredient to stay alive.

#EmbryosArentPeople

Despite the controversy, the law says embryos are not humans, they're property. Two thirds of embryos fail to develop properly to the next stage, let alone into a fully developed human being. Those arguing against embryonic personhood say it does not make sense to define personhood at such an early stage. There's no rational or scientific basis for it. 

The majority ruling, written by Appeals Judge Robert Clayton III, said the court “recognizes the sensitive nature of this case and the differing personal beliefs it evokes - ethical, religious and philosophical - pertaining to scientific advancements in reproductive technology, procreation choice, and the age-old and disputed question of when life begins.
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
“We are only required to decide whether frozen pre-embryos have the legal status of children under our dissolution of marriage statutes,” Clayton wrote.
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
He also noted that McQueen’s bid to apply Missouri law defining life as beginning at conception is at odds with U.S. Supreme Court decisions protecting Gadberry’s rights to privacy, freedom from government interference and not to procreate. 
#EmbryosHaveRights

Regardless of either law or science, pro-life activists are holding onto their convictions. Here are some perspectives from the pro-life crowd. 

#EmbryosArentPeople

Here are some perspectives from the no-rights crowd. 

FINAL RESULTS
Culture
Do fertilized embryos have a right to life?
#EmbryosHaveRights
A festive crown for the winner
#EmbryosArentPeople