Crucial question when deciding on the morality of how to treat the human embryo.

• Conception – individual acquires full genetic make-up, everything that determines your physical characteristics, from very first cell division, embryo’s development is directed towards already determined physical appearance.
• 15 days - spinal column appears and the embryo starts to take on more of a human appearance.
• Heart starts to beat after 21 days.
• By day 43 the first brain waves of the embryo can be recorded (O’Rahilly, R, & Muller F, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd Ed, New York, John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2001).
• Around 22 weeks, baby can survive outside the womb with adequate care.
• Legal personhood is not attributed until birth.

Reproduction of humans by asexual means to create a genetic copy of an already existing human being.

Arguments for – will help us to find cures for genetic conditions by using cloned embryos as a source of stem cells. Using cloned embryos to supply stem cells for the patient who has been cloned will avoid the problem of rejection due to tissue incompatibility often found in bone marrow, organ and other tissue transplants.

Arguments against – to use human beings in this way is morally wrong; human beings are not simply resource material to be exploited. Does not respect the dignity of human beings used in this way. Stem cells can be found from other sources e.g. baby’s placentas and umbilical cords and in many sites within the adult body such as the bone marrow. Adult stem cells are safer than embryonic and cloned embryonic stem cells as their growth is more easily controlled (Dr Lorraine Young of the Roslin Institute, The Daily Telegraph, 1 August 2000).

Reproductive cloning – a cloned embryo is transferred to a woman’s womb in the hope that he/she will implant and develop to birth.

Arguments for – will provide children for those who cannot have children by any other means.

Arguments against – we cannot disregard the moral questions raised by reproductive technologies. Cloning complicates and distorts human relationships – the cloned individual may have only one legal parent who may also be his/her biological sibling since they share genetic parents. The clone might also have a surrogate mother. Raises questions over how cloned human beings would be treated and accepted by society?

Is it right to destroy embryonic human beings in the name of finding cures for disability? Is it right to use an ethically questionable technique when there is an ethical and moral alternative?

Some people argue that allowing so-called therapeutic cloning will lead to the legalisation of reproductive cloning in the future.

Reproductive cloning of animals has produced serious abnormalities, is it morally acceptable to use such a technique on human beings without any knowledge of the possible outcome? If cloned human embryos created for "therapeutic" purposes are affected in the same way, will they be healthy enough to supply stem cells to those who need them?

What might be the motives behind reproductive cloning and might be the nature of the relationships that it would produce?

More embryos are created than are needed. Embryos left-over may be frozen for future use or consent may be given for them to be used in research. Any other “spare” embryos will be discarded. Between 1991 & 1998 750,000 embryos were created by IVF, 237,000 were destroyed and 48,000 were used for research (Yvette Cooper, Public Health Minister; House of Commons, Hansard, 15 December 2000). Treating human beings as “spare” or surplus does not respect the dignity of the individual but instead treats the human embryo as resource material to be used and discarded?

According to the HFEA the success rate using embryos that have been frozen is about 12% (Storage and Use of Frozen Eggs Information for Patients, HFEA, April 2000). Many embryos die as a result of the freezing and thawing process. Embryos who are frozen have their development suspended indefinitely. This process has also raised questions about the health of any children who are born after being frozen as an embryo.

Other techniques such as ICSI (intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection) involve piercing the egg and injecting sperm otherwise too weak to reach and fertilise the egg. Scientists admit that damaging the egg by piercing it and using weak sperm may result in developmental problems for any children created by this technology (Intra-cytoplasmic Sperm Injection, HFEA, June 2002).

IVF is out of control? Black twins born to white parents due to a mix up with the sperm and eggs. Men and women fighting in the courts over frozen embryos.

IVF is a multi-million pound industry, should people be making money from the heartache of those desperate to have children? Are children treated like commodities or property as a result of the development of such technologies? Is it ethical for clinics to offer couples free treatment if they donate their "spare" eggs for use by other couples? The Medical Research Council is also offering fertility clinics money to use their "spare" embryos in research, giving clinics more of an incentive to persuade couples to donate their embryos. Should this be considered ethical?

If a genetic disability is found or if the embryo is found to be of the sex that may develop a sex-related disability he/she will be discarded. Many embryos are therefore destroyed in the process of PGD. Of those who pass the test only one or two will be chosen for implantation.

PGD raises questions about how we think about and treat people with disabilities. Can we maintain our respect for people with disabilities if we endorse a technology that prevents people with disabilities from being born?

PGD raises the possibility of ‘designer babies’ as it involves the creation and destruction of embryos based on whether or not they meet a particular specification.

A couple have been given permission to create and test an embryo using PGD to ensure that he/she is both free from a particular disability and is also a tissue match for another child requiring stem cell treatment. Does this respect the right of every individual to be considered valuable for who they are rather than for what they can provide?

The HFEA recently consulted on the possibility of parents being allowed to choose the sex of their children using PGD, simply because they prefer a boy to a girl or vice versa.

Scientifically we can establish that once the sperm has fertilised the egg a new human being is created in embryonic form. The scientific community accepts the humanity of the embryo; it is because the embryo is human that it is considered to be so useful for research. Scientists agree that to pinpoint any other stage in our development as the beginning is arbitrary as our development is a continuous process from the point of fertilisation. This was also recognised by the Warnock Committee which made the recommendations on the treatment of embryos that led to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.

The use of any technology that endangers the life of the human embryo disregards the humanity of the embryo and discounts him/her from any right to be treated with dignity and respect? The human embryo is discriminated against on account of his/her stage of development?

Does the use of reproductive technologies establish the idea that everyone has a right to have children? Should people make money out of the heartache of those who are childless?

Does reproductive technology, including PGD, change how we treat and value children in our society, considering we now see men and women fighting in court over frozen embryos? Are children now seen as commodities or property in our society?

Does PGD establish the idea that not only does everyone have the right to have children, but also that everyone has the right to a ‘perfect’ child? Does PGD influence how society views and treats people with disabilities?

Does our society treat children as important for what they can provide rather than as important for who they are when we produce siblings by PGD to provide the necessary genetic material to treat their ill brother/sister? Is this also true for embryos used in experimentation and cloned embryos used in stem cell research, that they are seen as a means to someone else’s ends and are seen as resource material rather than as human beings?