Why Do Embryos Have Moral Status?

Pro-life groups and abortion rights activists have long been debating the moral status of embryos. Moral status refers to the intrinsic value of a person, animal, or in this case an embryo. If an entity has interests that morally matter so that it could be wronged, then it is considered to have moral status. The debate over whether embryos boils down to whether they have moral status or not. Pro-life groups believe that embryos do have moral status and that destroying it would be indistinguishable from murder. On the other hand, proponents believe that an embryo is just a bundle of cells that have no moral status and the benefits of stem cell research overshadows any issues with destroying embryos. Singer and Sagan both rejected the idea that
The U.S. Supreme Court provided a clear answer to the question whether embryos should have moral status and be considered humans through the Roe V. Wade case. Before legalizing abortion there was no clear recognition of the moral status of unborn children. This case counters the argument that embryos have moral status because they have the capacity to develop into human beings. (Brandt, 2017) Moral theories all agree that people have a moral standing and that their claims must be considered from a moral point of view. Many people that argue against abortion often use the religious views of Christianity to argue that all life is sacred. This cannot be a valid argument to establish moral status as it is not coming from a moral point of view. A better belief was proposed by a man called Albert Schweitzer. His ethics of reverence for life states that, “life is sacred. It is good to cherish and maintain life; it is evil to destroy and check life.” (Waid) His claim that ethics consists of practicing reverence for life advocates an approach toward all living beings. We should respect the claim of another person to live because we ourselves want to live. Schweitzer shows that from an ethical point of view embryos should have a moral status. This issue however is intertwined with science and our understanding of
However, things are not black and white, and one cannot just look at this issue from one perspective. When looking at the picture all together it can be said that Schweitzer’s ethic of reverence for life is simply too broad and therefore does not support a realistic interpretation of moral standing. Scientists also have issues with there being exceptions to their arguments of embryos not being living things. Viruses have all the characteristics of life yet are not considered living things if they are outside a cell. This argument will continue between various groups with some trying to ban abortion, some fighting for their right to have access to it. Scientists will still argue that using embryonic stem cells for research is not considered murder while others will disagree. While I had set out to prove that it is permissible to destroy embryos I encountered many strong counter arguments as to why it should be impermissible. After considering all the differing perspectives in this complex question I believe that there is no right answer as to whether embryos should have moral status or not. Morally, women should have the right to have access to abortion and I believe that scientists should be allowed to conduct stem cell research for the greater good. However, I also believe that killing another person is wrong and I do not think it is possible to