Video Files Formats

Invitro is defined as, "In glass, as in a test tube" (Taber’s cyclopedic
dictionary,1993), hence with reference to invitro fertilization, the term

"Test tube baby". The first ‘test tube baby’ was Louise Brown of England
(Jonsen, A. R., 1996). Dr. Patrick Steptoe and Professor Robert Edwards combined
an ovum from Mrs. Brown, and sperm from Mr. Brown cultured it in a petri dish,
and reimplanted the now embryo into Mrs. Brown’s uterus (Jonsen, A. R.,1996).

The result was the same as a child born in the usual way, only the means to the
end was different. The media had a field day with this, and since then,
reproduction as we know it has changed. We now use the term "assisted
reproduction" to describe a host of methods used to assist infertile couples
to have children. A menagerie of large terms, abbreviations, and acronyms are
used under the umbrella of this term, such as GIFT, IVF, FSH, AID, etc. The
bottom line is that technology has allowed man to take yet another matter into
his own hands, that may be considered "playing God". As with any new
procedure or product, there are always "bugs to work out". Sometimes we can
anticipate what these will be, but many times we "cross that bridge when we
come to it". Such seems to be the case with assisted reproduction. Considering
the complicated custody battles already occurring with regard to our"naturally made children", we have seen, and can anticipate more tangled
legal webs ahead. Not much has been done to anticipate the complexities involved
with assisted reproduction. In 1975, a federal law was enacted that created an

Ethics Advisory Board (EAB)(Caplan, A. L., 1990). In 1979, this organization
issued a report merely stating that invitro fertilization was worthy of monetary
funds (Caplan, A. L., 1990). The EAB disbanded in 1979 (Caplan, A. L., 1990). In

1994, The American Society for Reproductive Medicine designed a set of ethical
considerations, but compliance is voluntary (Klotzko, A. J., 1998). Since no
real regulatory agency exists, IVF is done as providers see fit. The formation
of The American Society for Reproductive medicine reflects the fact that there
are clearly many ethical issues with regard to IVF. Three issues are the
following: 1. Previously, an embryo has been a part of a woman’s body. Roe vs.

Wade based it’s decision on abortion being part of a woman’s privacy. With
regard to frozen embryos which are not a part of the women’s body, does she
have the right to choose their fate, and does the father have equal say? 2. Do
the potential parents of these embryos have the right to change their minds
about becoming parents once the embryos have been frozen? 3. In complicated
matters with multiple parents, does multiple parental roles with visitation
rights adversely affect a child’s social development? When one is discussing
abortion, the argument heard most often by the advocates of pro-choice is that
this is a matter of a woman controlling what goes on with her body. Furthermore,
advocates claim, that as such, the elimination of the fetus falls under this
right of privacy. Pro-life advocates feel that these embryos are individual
human beings entitled to the right to be born. Embryos are considered life in
the earliest of stages. However, what we have here are frozen embryos, suspended
if you will in a state of non-life. They clearly do not reside in the woman’s
body as of yet, and if kept in the current state, will never give breath. It
seems that the prochoicers would have to extend their definition of these being
a part of the woman’s body, to giving their potential to be such, meaning as
well. While they are not a part of the woman’s body yet, this is the intended
place for them to grow, and obviously they cannot grow inside of the father, at
least yet. The prolife, and paternal argument would be that these embryos are
clearly not a part of the woman’s body. They could be implanted in any woman,
not necessarily the mother. Therefore, the mother does not have the right to
abort the embryos. Furthermore, the male may have the right to claim custody for
implantation in another suitable candidate other than the mother if she is
unwilling. What we have in the case of Mary Davis and Junior Davis is a woman
fighting to have her own embryos implanted in her own uterus. Based on some of
the facts above however, does the father now have more right over the embryos,
since this process has not yet taken