Laws are designed to protect all citizens, even though they are not clear when it comes to deciding on what happens to couples’ embryos. The judge, in the fact pattern case, is torn because the parents want different decisions. He also has to remember that he will be setting a legal precedent for which other cases will be based on. The decision will be ridiculed no matter the outcome. The embryos should not be destroyed because every living thing has the right to life, there are numerous loving couples who can not have children on their own, and children are still desired by one parent.
An embryo is the young of something in an early stage of development. Although, it is not recognizable, two people conceived the embryo in question. Therefore, the fetus should have the same right to life that all existing creatures possess. No one person should be allowed to destroy something already in the process of living. The decision of destroying any living being should be left in the hands of the being, and in this case that is impossible. We have to wait until the child is old enough to ask her.
Many couples, who can not have children of their own, want to adopt new born babies. If the embryo is allowed to live nothing but good will happen for it, because of the demand for newborn babies in the adoption market. The child would not end up in a foster home because the mother has feelings for it, and would see the baby is well taken care of. Adoptive parents are known to be loving and caring begetters, because they try hard to bring children into their lives. Consequently, the judge should at least allow another couple to make good use of the embryos.
The lady in the fact pattern still has the desire for children. She gave her eggs fully expecting to use them when the time is right. The husband obviously wants nothing to do with the embryos, but the wife could make an agreement to take full responsibility. Therefore, relieving the husband of all liabilities, and placing them on the wife. She may also see these embryos as her last opportunity to have children. Even though, the father would be absent she manifestly has the need to be a mother.
There is no easy way to satisfy both parties in the fact pattern case. But, if both sides try they could come to an accord on the issue. They have to realize that compromise is the key to any agreement. There is no good reason to order the embryos destroyed, however there is no rationalism for holding the husband responsible for something he no longer wants a part in. Consequently, the judge needs to give the wife control over the embryos and relieve the husband of liability. That would give an excellent legal precedent.
