Embryo should be treated as a human

This letter is in response to Bree Dalager’s letter (“Embryo should not be considered ‘human subject’ “) that appeared Nov. 12. Why not call embryos human? She said herself the human fetus is undeniably and scientifically alive. Why, then, should we say it is not human?

And why is something as small as a change in name so damaging to the issue of abortion that it warrants this type of response? I have heard cheeseburgers being called “charred animal flesh,” yet I don’t run to the defense of a person’s right to eat meat. The fact that a mere name change can outrage the advocates for choice demonstrates that there is something very wrong with this “right.”

Dalager said an embryo is not a separate entity but that it is dependent on the woman to sustain it. However, one could say that a 2-year-old toddler is dependent upon the woman to sustain it as well, as are all children. Even some adults cannot survive without the care of others. Where do we draw the line?

As a society, we have abolished the idea of survival of the fittest by allowing the weak, sick and others with special needs to lead normal lives. So how can we say that because something is dependent on something else, that makes it all right to kill it?

Furthermore, why doesn’t everybody have this right to choose which life is sacred and which life is not? What makes women so special that they alone receive this right? Should men not also have a similar right to choose the personhood of another being?

There are some adults that are just as helpless as babies. Should we not have a right to choose whether they live or die? How far can we go before it becomes wrong? If religious morals have no place in determining scientific definitions, why can’t science declare us all animals and make it open season for killing?

Jim McDoniel, sophomore, College of Liberal Arts