With respect to persons or property, the court treated the embryos in question with more respect than that which is bestowed to human body tissue, but not the one bestowed to an actual person. The reasons were that due to their potential to become persons, the embryos deserved more respect than human tissue, but not like persons since they are yet to develop characteristics of personhood (Davis v. Davis, 1992). I agree with this status since it is only after implantation that embryos can develop into a person. The status of the embryos, in this case, is similar to the status of the fetus in the case Roe v. Wade , since they are in an interim category that accords them distinctive respect due to their potential to become persons, making them not to be considered as either property or persons.
During the trial, Junior Davis argued that the embryos should remain frozen until he chose whether he wanted or did not want to be a parent outside marriage. He also argued against donating the embryos and noted that he preferred them to be discarded (Davis v. Davis, 1992). I find Junior Davis's arguments to be compelling since both parties have a right to the embryos. On the other hand, Mary Sue Davis, at first, argued that she should have control of the frozen embryos and have them transferred to her uterus, but later claimed that they should be donated to a couple who have no child (Davis v. Davis, 1992). I find her argument to be noble; however, donating the embryos against her husband's will would be stripping him his rights over them.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In deciding the case, the Supreme Court of Tennessee held that without prior agreements, both parties' interests of using or not using the embryos must be considered. It also held that pre-embryos were not persons, and the progenitors had equal privacy rights, which included not interference in procreation decisions (Davis v. Davis, 1992). As such, the case was ruled in Junior Davis’ favor since his argument of not becoming a parent outweighed Mary's argument of donating them.
Reference
Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588 (1992). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=davis+v.+davis&hl=en&as_sdt=10000006&case=17302847389043812781&scilh=0
