[Writer's Name]

[Supervisor's Name]

[Subject]

[Date]

Fetal Rights

Introduction

The status of the human embryo has been debated in the 1970s (liberalization of abortion) in terms of individual freedom (the right of women to self-vs. "Right to life" of the fetus hidden in the body of his mother), and in 1980 (application of reproductive technologies "artificial"), in terms of collective responsibility with respect to the embryo separate test designed, put in the freezer and coveted by the Research is not made when a mother's womb. There is no philosophical consensus on the fundamentals of protection of the embryo. This article wants to locate the positions involved to inform a debate that affects, among others, the source of the respect for the human person. Instrumentalization of the embryo and respect for human

The techniques of pre-conception accustom us that human gametes or human embryos are treated as objects (frozen, stored, thawed), and / or treated as means (use of fetal tissue to treat immune deficiencies or neurological). This trend seems to have against the affirmation of respect for the human person as stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and constitutions of most countries. This principle uses the second formula of the categorical imperative proposed by the philosopher Immanuel Kant: "Always act in a manner that you show humanity in your person, as in that of others, not only as a means. There is a conflict between the principle of respect for human beings and the exploitation of the human embryonic or fetal stages, unless an embryo is not a human person? The rights, legally, begin at birth ("Men are born free and equal in rights ..." Bill of Rights e man and citizen).

The cell (zygote), after fertilization of an egg by a sperm, does not seem to have the minimum features that would be giving it a personal legal status. That the legal criteria are not clear incentive to philosophical reflection: what is human dignity and builds respect for the man by man? The human being is respected as a person (an object is not respectable). But what makes a person? (Marzilli, pp. 176).

Two extremes clash today. According to some it is enough for a person to own the human genome, belonging to the human species (biological criterion or natural). According to others, it is necessary for a person has enough conscience and reason into the community of free subjects and exercise moral autonomy (cultural or ethical criterion). Those who judge these two irreconcilable theories propose to abandon the field of ontology (reflection on being and its different forms) and to seek the foundation for understanding practice: the question is not whether the embryo or not a person to define rules of conduct to him. It turns out that deontology outlined so far involve ontology through which seeks throughout the redevelopment boundaries above and or abandonment of the dualism of things / people (Marzilli, pp. 78). The biological criterion: the embryo as a human

According to this view, the person is co-extensive with the ...