[author]Wu Ziyuan

[content]

Theoretical criticism and institutional direction of human embryonic properties

*Author Wu Ziyuan

Lecturer at Jilin University Law School

Abstract: Taking whether the human embryo has a “person” as the core, the traditional theory of the attribute of the human embryo can be divided into conservatism and liberalism. However, neither of two argumentative paths has actually got rid of the theoretical stereotype of first-order observation, and they are both caught in the traditional way of thinking with a dichotomy between subject and object. In fact, the process by which the human embryo acquires its full “person” should be a continuous and gradual process of self-growth. So, we should break the myth of the biological event of the 14-day rule and contextualize the different moral and legal status of the human embryo in a dynamic chain of development. The goal of theoretical breakthrough will ultimately point to legislation and judicial practice. This progressive recognition of the status of human embryo whose attribute is duality of subject and object require us to uphold a modest and open position in the legislative design of human embryo. We should respect the value of human embryo’s subjectivity, maintaining the greatest prudence, and build a new, open and inclusive legislative framework which can promote technological development. 'To resolve the disputes over human embryos, agreement should be taken as the primary way and the family should be special consideration. For the non-implantation use of human embryos, the prohibition of sale and limited scientific utilization should be as the guiding principles. These can provide ideas for the future direction of legislation on human embryos in China.

Key Words: Human Embryo; Person; Duality of Subject and Object; Progressive; Human Dignity

Introduction

From the perspective of the basic methodology of civil law and the philosophy of civil law, civil society is composed of people and things as its fundamental elements.     As the subject, humans dominate the entire material world; And things exist as the material foundation of society, subordinate to humans. Since the 15th century, legislation has made clear distinctions between natural persons and objects, and stipulated that only natural persons enjoy legal personality. Thus, the concept of "thing" in civil law has completed its independent self construction and become a unique legal concept corresponding to "person". Traditional civil law holds that the criteria for judging objects are independence that is outside the human body, controllable by humans, and meets the needs of society. Therefore, in practice, we can directly recognize human tissues such as hair and donated blood as objects, and occupy, use, profit from, and dispose of them in accordance with relevant regulations. However, this concept of "things" has been questioned by the academic community in modern life medicine practice. With the increasing socialization of assisted reproductive technology, special entities such as human embryos from the human body are beginning to enter the realm of objects. If we follow the same logic to determine the legal attributes of human embryos, it will attract opposition from the majority of people. The reason is that human embryos have the potential to develop into adults under certain conditions, that is, they have personality benefits. This is fundamentally different from other human tissues and organs, and we cannot equate it with them.

So, what are the properties of human embryos? There are divergent opinions in both the theoretical and practical circles regarding this matter. People have vastly different or even completely opposite attitudes towards how to determine and grasp the legal attributes of human embryos. If the human embryo is a property, it should be subject to the rules of property law, that is, as the object of property rights, it belongs to the joint property of husband and wife. The actions of the rights holder to possess, use, benefit from, and dispose of it within the legal scope according to their own will will will not cause legal disputes. If the human embryo is a human, a subject, as a form of life, it cannot be arbitrarily disposed of, destroyed, or commercialized, but can only be implanted. The solutions to the above issues vary among countries and consensus has not yet been reached. Our civil law has adopted an evasive attitude and has not yet provided a clear answer. Only the "Regulations on the Administration of Human Assisted Reproductive Technology" and the "Regulations on the Administration of Human Sperm Banks" have made principled provisions prohibiting the sale of human embryos. The above legislative text basically adopts the perspective of "intermediary theory", which emphasizes the need to protect the potential life value of human embryos and to allow limited scientific research and utilization of human embryos.

On the surface, the intermediary theory seems to perfectly compensate for the theoretical shortcomings of the subject theory and the object theory, and is the best path choice; But in essence, the intermediary theory cannot yet guide specific practice and has no practical significance. On the one hand, the intermediary theory attempts to overturn the traditional logic of the dichotomy between subject and object in civil law, and advocates for a tripartite system of "person object quasi object". Firstly, this path of creating laws rather than interpreting them will consume a lot of time and economic costs, making it difficult to resolve the urgent human embryo dispute. Secondly, new legislation inevitably conflicts and conflicts with traditional legislation, leading to new legal risks. This measure is prone to ripple effects and is not conducive to maintaining the internal stability of the legal system. On the other hand, as an intermediary, the concept of "quasi object" as the core concept itself is an ambiguous concept in terms of connotation and extension. It is not clear when we should regard human embryos as humans and when they should be regarded as objects, and the criteria for determining whether they are humans or objects. The ambiguity of legal attributes ultimately leads to a lack of legal basis, which in turn causes confusion in judicial decisions. In summary, although the intermediary theory tries to avoid the limitations of the subject and object theories, this vague and subversive concept design itself can also fall into the quagmire of theory.

In recent years, with the continuous maturity and widespread application of freezing technology, coupled with the prolonged in vitro cultivation time of human embryos, disputes caused by human embryos in China have been increasing and emerging, and the total amount has been on the rise year by year. As a high-end and cutting-edge technology, frozen embryo technology is not only related to ethics and morality, but also to the legal system. Legislators' failure to timely adapt to the needs of social, economic, and technological development in amending laws is a manifestation of legal lag. Over time, if these outdated normative texts cannot be explained or corrected by legislators in a timely manner, it will not be conducive to resolving disputes and may even trigger more serious social conflicts. In this context, we not only need to "sit back and discuss", starting from the traditional theoretical disputes and criticisms of the identification of human embryonic attributes, but also need to find a new perspective on the legal positioning of human embryonic attributes, that is, a "gradual" identification method. We also need to "take action", based on the dual nature of the subject and object of human embryonic attributes, propose the position we should uphold in human embryonic legislation, propose specific design plans for the rules of human embryonic ownership, inheritance, and disposal, and construct a legal framework that can achieve a positive interaction between human embryonic protection and scientific research development on the basis of cultural traditions and the needs of the times, theoretical and practical analysis.

1.The Traditional Theoretical Controversy and Core Critique of the Attributes of Human Embryos

The most traditional argument about the properties of human embryos is the subject theory and the object theory, and based on this, the academic community has gradually developed different views of conservatism and liberalism. Conservatism holds that the moment sperm and egg self combine triggers new life, therefore, the human embryo is life, even if it has not yet become a true human at some point, it has personality. Some scholars advocate defining it as a 'limited number of people'. This viewpoint fully protects the integrity of the human body and respects the possibility of future adult development attached to the human embryo. The viewpoint of liberalism is exactly the opposite, believing that the human embryo is only a collection of biological cells, and its essence is a kind of thing, which is the object of property rights. On the basis of this viewpoint, the academic community has extended two theories, namely the theory of property and the theory of private interests in marital life. However, regardless of the theory, it holds that the human embryo, which is not a subject of rights, has no personality, that is, the human embryo does not enjoy any subjective rights and interests. For a long time, in the debate about whether the human embryo is a "human", conservatives and liberals have their own words, and the core of the relevant debate is nothing more than the determination of whether the human embryo has a "persona", further discussing a series of issues such as when the persona is born and how the persona is formed.

1.1 'Continual Life' and 'Vitality Theory': Theoretical Proof and Criticism of Conservatives

The 'personality' is the symbol of the existence of intelligent life, and it is the core of life. The personality of a person is called 'personality'. The term 'human' in Spanish specifically refers to animal species in the natural world, emphasizing the biological attributes of humans. On the other hand, the term 'personality person' is a non objective and neutral descriptive term that encompasses philosophical, moral, theological, legal, and other meanings with inherent ethical implications. The conservative view holds that human embryos enjoy the same "status" as humans from the day they are born, and should have the same moral status, respect, and protection as humans from the beginning. They advocate that at the time of fertilization, the human embryo carries all the genetic code necessary for a person's existence in an extremely simple way, and these genetic codes contain the organic laws that form a complete human being. Therefore, when we acknowledge that human embryos are a human species with a "human genetic code," we should accept them as real human members and grant them moral rights. Based on this, conservatives argue that any existence with a "human genetic code" has a "lattice". In addition, some scholars do not explicitly advocate the concept of "personality", but instead start from the life potential of human embryos and argue that human embryos have a moral status as humans. As Buckle proposed, the importance of the latent comes from its complete possibility of developing into a rational person in the future. The latent is not only a biological person, but also a human subject. As the 'subject of human beings', this means that it has moral and legal considerations, and its moral and legal status should be protected. Therefore, it is necessary for us to pre protect the intrinsic value and human dignity of objective entities (human embryos) with the potential to develop into adults in law. Chinese scholar Zhang Chunmei also proposed that this potential has become the basis for the inherent value and dignity of human embryos. It is based on this assertion that many countries and regions, represented by Louisiana in the United States, have recognized the legal subject status of human embryos in legislation.

The above theoretical propositions and legislative designs, although having differences in argumentation, actually emphasize that human life already exists when the two sexes combine to form a fertilized egg. The subsequent process of conception, birth, growth, and even death experienced by the fertilized egg does not fundamentally change its human nature. In fact, if we deny that the realization of the moral status of human embryos is the result of the accumulation of certain special attributes and functions, then human individuals with ontological significance can be found in fertilized eggs. The ethical basis of this proposition is the concept of "continuum", which means that the fertilized egg has the same structure as the person who will grow up in the future, and from birth, it internalizes a driving force that is sufficient to complete the transition from the germ cell to the adult state. The biological growth process of human embryos, fetuses, and infants belongs to the evolutionary logic of the "human" species itself, and is a process of quantitative accumulation rather than qualitative transformation (from non-human species to human members) in the time chain. Under the joint action of individuality, continuity, and ontological identity of human genes, human life has embarked on a purposeful organic development path guided by its own characteristics since the combination of sperm and egg. The biggest difference between the human embryo and other human tissues and organs lies in the organic law of the overall human formation contained within itself. This law is not a hypothetical or abstract possibility, but a tangible force. Based on this understanding, fertilized eggs or early human embryos are fundamentally different from sperm, unfertilized eggs, and subsequently formed somatic cells, as these reproductive cells do not yet possess the integrative power of the former to form the entire organism. Here, we want to emphasize that a life can only maintain its vigorous evolutionary ability in a continuous dynamic development process, and we must never forget the importance of its original state when paying attention to this process, because this original state itself constitutes a non static architecture in the dynamic process. It can be inferred that human embryos containing genetic information should belong to the category of individuals, just like humans, and should enjoy inalienable moral and legal rights. If the sanctity of life cannot encompass the entire chain from birth to death, it will inevitably give rise to a utilitarian view of life and undermine the most fundamental ethical principles of humanity.

In the view of conservatives, the human embryo enjoys independent subject status due to its "personality", and we cannot regard it as a tool or means. However, in reality, although the conservative view of human embryos is beneficial for protecting their potential life, it is undoubtedly a paranoid dictatorship, which to some extent reflects the rupture between scientism and humanism. Scientists adhere to the values of mechanistic theory, advocating that the human embryo be regarded as an objective entity and an experimental object. They pay more attention to the internal laws of human embryo growth, thereby realizing its maximum scientific research value, but rarely pay attention to the subjective value and human dignity attached to the human embryo. Humanists, on the other hand, emphasize a value system of vitality and oppose treating human embryos as objective matter, focusing all attention on the potential for human embryos to develop into adults. They endow human embryos with rich humanistic meanings, advocating that human embryos are life rather than machines, and possess extraordinary mysterious vitality that only humans possess. This reverence for humanism leads to the prohibition of using human embryos, whether for legal or illegal reasons, and the only way to dispose of them is to implant them into the mother's body. Any other manipulation of human embryos is tantamount to murdering the life of a "human", and these actions will be morally condemned and prohibited by law.

In fact, if we adhere to the vitality theory and give the human embryo the status of subjectivity from the beginning, it will trigger a series of problems. In the specific process of medical practice, when human embryos cannot be implanted, medical personnel must store them in liquid nitrogen at minus 196 ° C. Storing a large number of human embryos will inevitably consume significant economic costs. If human embryos cannot be used for medical research, it will lead to the termination of more difficult and miscellaneous disease research related to human embryos, which will hinder the development of medicine and violate the original purpose and beliefs of medical research. From a theoretical analysis perspective, the views advocated by conservatives lack understanding of the "positional" relationship and to some extent fall into the trap of "genetic determinism". On the one hand, in the natural reproductive field, there is a natural connection between the human embryo and its later developed fetus, infant, and mother, and the two entities are inseparable. The former is based on the existence of the latter, and the former cannot survive alone without the latter. From this, we can infer that due to physiological limitations, human embryos do not have independent entity, and therefore cannot enjoy a completely independent and self existing status, and thus cannot enjoy the same moral status and legal personality as humans from the beginning. On the other hand, although conservatives base their theoretical claims on certain natural science foundations, such as molecular genetics and evolution theory, they simply believe that the formation of the genetic code alone can determine the formation of the locus locally, to the extent that they consider genes as the ultimate explanation for all human psychological activities and behavioral patterns. The underlying logic behind this proposition is to downgrade and restore all physiological, psychological, and behavioral phenomena of human beings to genes. Although this viewpoint has some rationality, it undoubtedly seriously violates the dignity and sanctity of human personality. We acknowledge that genes, as the genetic material of life, fundamentally determine the form of human existence and future way of life. However, if we decompose the entire life system into individual gene units, connect the expression of biological traits with genetic genes through a causal relationship, and reduce the essence of life to a special class of chemical molecules and spatial phenomena, proposing that life is only an existence determined by DNA, this is undoubtedly irrational.

1.2 'Rational Ability' and 'Mechanism': Theoretical Proof and Criticism of Liberalism

Due to the numerous theoretical and practical challenges in exploring the formation criteria of individuals from the perspective of human biology, some scholars have turned their attention to another path, which is to determine the formation criteria of individuals from the perspective of human rational ability, emphasizing that in addition to biology, humans can only become true individuals after possessing sociality. In the view of liberals, the reason why humans have ethical status is due to their rational thinking ability. The logical reasoning behind this viewpoint is that irrationality leads to no personality, no personality leads to no ethical and legal status, and no ethical and legal status leads to no rights. Based on this, in the discourse system of liberals, they oppose the idea that human embryos have a subject status from the beginning and believe that they cannot be called human. Its proposition is that subject status is an additional or cumulative property obtained only after the human embryo develops to a certain form or possesses certain abilities. Similar to conservatives, some liberals also focus on the issue of potentiality. As scholars such as Hale have proposed, although human embryos have the potential to develop into adults, this potential can only be fully realized before the human embryo can become a life with a personality. As long as the human embryo is still a potential life form that may arise in the future, conscious life cannot be associated with it. Essentially, it is a 'latent life form' or 'pre life existence'. From the perspective of legislation and judicial practice, many countries also hold this argument. The Supreme Court of the United States explicitly opposed the independent legal rights of fetuses in the Roe v. Wade case. It believes that science cannot provide a definitive and consistent answer to when life began.

As a typical representative of this viewpoint, Peter Singer's argument that early human embryos have a legitimate right to life based on the level of consciousness development is incorrect. He first divided life into three categories and condensed five characteristics of the concept of human nature or moral meaning based on this: first, the consciousness of perceiving pain; The second is the ability to reason and solve complex problems; Thirdly, it can engage in spontaneous actions independent of genetics or external control; The fourth is the ability to communicate with others; The emergence of autonomous self-awareness. If we want to determine whether an entity has personality, we need to see if the entity meets all five of the above characteristics. In terms of ethical issues arising from modern life technology, Singh proposed that the value of early human embryos, which do not possess the aforementioned characteristics, is not greater than that of non-human animals with similar rationality, self-awareness, perception, and perceptual abilities. Since human embryos are not human beings, they do not have the same right to life as human beings. Therefore, the reasons used by some scholars at present to argue that early human embryos have a legitimate right to life are insufficient, and these views only stay at a certain level of reality. The key to the problem we want to solve is to grasp the key nodes and core characteristics of the transformation of human embryos into individuals. Once the human embryo develops to a critical point, it becomes a living entity, and we cannot do anything harmful to it. This reason is precisely the basis for granting rights to the human embryo. However, if the human embryo does not transform into a living entity, it will have no conscious ability and will not perceive harm. This means that the human embryo does not have any personal interests in the process of evolving from reproductive cells to living entities.

The liberal viewpoint not only subverts the sanctity of human life, but more importantly, it also denies the natural connection between respecting and protecting the right to life and religious moral intuition. Liberalists explore human dignity from the perspective of rationality and moral behavior ability, affirming human self-awareness. This definition highlights the self reflection ability possessed by individuals. Of course, this argument also has certain logical shortcomings, that is, it fundamentally ignores the moral status of human embryos as potential living individuals, and completely ignores that unconscious human embryos are a prerequisite for the existence of conscious individuals. They unilaterally emphasize that the biological nature of human beings is not equivalent to their personality when arguing their own views, but they fail to answer another more important question, which is whether objective entities without consciousness in morality and law inherently and absolutely do not enjoy the right to life? And the affirmative answer to this question has become the justification for some scientists to engage in deviant behaviors such as enhanced gene editing and reproductive cloning.

The seemingly reasonable viewpoint of liberalism has fallen into a fatal fallacy: liberals exclude the human embryo from the "lattice" from the beginning and completely, viewing it as a Heidegger's concept of existence that can be arbitrarily manufactured, used, destroyed, and discarded. From a utilitarian perspective, in order to maximize profits, human embryos are used in various experimental studies, and experimenters do not pay attention to the subjective interests attached to the human embryo, let alone its "status". Because in the eyes of liberals, human embryos are tools and ordinary objects. They seriously overlooked the fact that from unconscious to conscious, life has subject consistency and temporal continuity. They fundamentally deny the inherent value and subject dignity of human embryos from birth, greatly degrading the status of human life. Liberalists emphasize a mechanistic value system, which holds that the human embryo is nothing more than a pile of matter and has no essential difference from other objects. Since the Renaissance, influenced by traditional mechanistic theory, the research path of Western science has often been analytical. Starting from this analytical framework, researchers pay more attention to the materiality and objectivity of human embryos as experimental subjects when performing technical operations on them, and they uphold a weak humanistic consciousness. Furthermore, the claim of liberalism regarding the criteria for confirming "units" is unconvincing. If we regard rationality, autonomy, and other standards as the norm, not only can we conclude that human embryos with potential rational abilities cannot be called individuals, but those who become vegetative or intellectually disabled due to congenital or acquired reasons will also be excluded from the "individual". We can see that what liberals advocate is a 'personality of the strong'. Rationality and autonomy are just abilities, but not every human member possesses these abilities or has external conditions to apply them, such as children, impoverished populations, etc. Therefore, according to the perspective of liberalism, human society will be divided into two major camps: first, those who possess autonomous abilities and are able to use these abilities will have a personality; Secondly, those who do not possess this ability or are unable to use it normally are excluded from the status. This conclusion is obviously contrary to public intuition.

2. Towards a 'progressive' approach: a new perspective on confirming the attributes of human embryos

Whether conservative or liberal, the seemingly opposing sides always say the same thing. What is referred to here is not that both parties hold the same viewpoint, but rather that they lack reflection on their respective positions and beliefs, and have fallen into the traditional thinking of 'non humans are things'. In fact, there are a large number of entities with intermediate moral status between people and things. If humans have complete ethical status and objects do not have any ethical status, then these intermediate entities have a "certain" or "complete" ethical status under different temporal and spatial conditions. The human embryo is a typical example of this entity that combines the duality of subject and object. Of course, we need to emphasize the difference between the entity that combines the duality of subject and object and the quasi object in the "human object quasi object" ternary system: the former is a reconfirmation of the attributes of things without breaking through the logical framework of subject object dichotomy, while the latter is a setting of new things on the basis of subverting existing traditions. We have already explained the theoretical and practical difficulties caused by the latter approach in the previous text, so we will not elaborate on it here. However, even if we acknowledge that the human embryo, as a special existence of generational alternation, has a dual nature of subject and object, it is still difficult to solve the series of problems caused by the human embryo in the practical process. The most crucial and pressing issue that we need to further discuss is when and under what circumstances subjectivity takes the dominant position in the process of human embryo birth, growth, and development, if the subjectivity and objectivity attached to it undergo a fierce game? When and under what circumstances does objectivity dominate? How should we make a choice when two attributes conflict in a specific situation? How to conduct value balancing? The resolution of these issues is crucial for us to confirm the properties of human embryos. If we want to fundamentally solve this problem, theoretical exploration within the social sciences alone is not enough. We also need to study the biological process of life development and the deep logic hidden behind science and technology.

2.1 The dynamic evolution of lattices: the basic principle of "progressive" identification of human embryonic attributes

Although the human embryo appears to be a simple combination of sperm and egg on the surface, it actually initiates the most complex chemical reaction in the world as soon as it appears. It carries all the genetic information of a person and contains infinite power for developing into an adult. In fact, the process of human embryonic development into adulthood is a self evolutionary process that continues to develop over time. During this period, the human embryo formed by the combination of sperm and egg is the starting point, as well as a necessary variant and special stage. In view of this, we can infer that the human embryo has a "personality" from birth due to innate endowment, but the "personality" at this time is very weak. As time goes by, the human embryo will continue to develop, and its physical and mental functions will continue to accumulate. Its "personality" will also grow continuously and gradually, and pursuing the perfection of its personality is its goal in the process of natural evolution. Therefore, in a sense, the magnitude and ethical status of the human embryo's "position" are inversely correlated with its distance from birth, showing a decreasing trend in the retrograde dimension and an increasing trend in the clockwise dimension. From this, it can be seen that the "position" of the human embryo is not a fixed quantity, and its strength fundamentally depends on the developmental status of the human embryo itself. We cannot determine from the beginning whether the human embryo has a position completely equivalent to that of a human, nor can we hastily view it in a physical way.

The next question to be discussed is that from a fertilized egg to a new individual, the human embryo undergoes a series of very complex changes. So, when the lattice values attached to it accumulate to what extent can we consider it as an existence equivalent to humans? Before reaching this threshold, although human embryos have the potential to develop into adults, we cannot consider them as fully human beings. At this stage, human embryos have both subjectivity and physical properties, and on this basis, we can conduct medical research and scientific utilization on them. We acknowledge that the scientific utilization of human embryos can cause certain harm to them, but if such harm can save more people and obtain more good, then according to the Pareto theorem, these damages can receive sufficient moral justification. We need to note that due to the unique life value and certain status of human embryos, in the process of scientific research, we must prohibit treating human embryos as general objects that can be manipulated arbitrarily. Without justifiable reasons, it is not allowed to damage or destroy human embryos at will, and their use must be strictly controlled. With the passage of time and the self-development of the human embryo, when the number of cells attached to the human embryo reaches a certain threshold, subjectivity gradually surpasses objectivity and takes the dominant position. The human embryo can then exist as a human being, and our protection of it is a reverence for human dignity and the value of life. Thus, we found that although the "position" of human embryos at birth is lower in magnitude than that of adults, it will gradually mature and improve with its own evolution and development, and eventually approach the "position" of a complete human. After ten months of pregnancy, one day of childbirth, and survival in the world, the human embryo enjoys the same ethical status and moral rights as humans. We place the ethical status of human embryos in a dynamic stage of development, advocating that their "status" will gradually become prominent in this process, emphasizing that human embryos have subjectivity and personality, while recognizing that they also have certain physical and instrumental properties. This is a more scientifically realistic and ethically supported way of identifying the attributes of human embryos.

2.2 Rigidity and Flexibility: Reflection and Sublimation of the Traditional 14 Day Rule

For many years, almost all laboratories studying in vitro culture of human embryos have followed the 14 day rule. Scientists in European and American countries who value embryonic ethics believe that human embryos should be considered human when they show early signs of neurological development on the 14th day of fertilization. According to British legislation, human life begins on the 14th day after the implantation of the fertilized egg. The "Warnock Report" of the UK's Warnock Commission and the "Ethical Guidelines for Artificial Reproduction Technology" and "Management Measures for Assisted Reproduction Technology" in Taiwan both prohibit the use of human embryos that have been fertilized for more than 14 days. The reason for using the 14th day as a time point is that embryological research has found that after the appearance of primitive spinal cord stripes on the 14th day, human embryos begin to differentiate into various tissues and organs, which means that at this time, the human embryo has the ability to develop into a human individual. From this, it can be inferred that in medicine, human embryos before the 14th day are not considered a human life and therefore do not have special moral and legal status. But does this recognition method mean that we can include human embryos from the 14th day ago in the category of objects and treat them as ordinary objects for arbitrary use and disposal? At the same time, the 14 day rule seems too rigid, and people cannot explain clearly what qualitative differences exist in human embryos before and after the 14th day. Could it be that on the 13th day, it was still seen as a cluster of pluripotent cells, but on the 14th day, due to tissue differentiation, it immediately became a rational person? The answer is negative.

In fact, the 14 day rule was a product of policy compromise from its inception. In 1978, the world's first test tube baby was born in the UK. Due to criticism of artificial assisted reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization and concerns about the fate of remaining human embryos during surgery, the British public is calling for strict control over human embryo research. However, in practical operation, what kind of institutional design should be carried out has become a difficult problem that the British authorities must face. The reason is that there is endless debate among various parties on how to establish the moral status of human embryos. In order to address the major debate that occurred in the 1980s, the Warnock Commission was born. The Warnock Committee is acutely aware that choosing either the legislative path of legalizing human embryonic research or the legislative path of completely banning human embryonic research will attract fierce attacks from all sectors. Therefore, it deliberately avoids clarifying a series of ontological issues such as the moral status of human embryos, and does not seek perfect philosophical reasoning. Instead, it places public controversies in public forums and seeks public policies to address the moral issues of human embryo legislation. Finally, despite the complete opposition of three internal members, the Warnock Committee established the 14 day rule on the grounds that primitive spinal cord stripes would appear in human embryos on the 14th day. In fact, both supporters and opponents of human embryo research question the scientific validity and rationality of the 14 day rule. Firstly, the selection of the 14th day as a time point is too rigid and arbitrary. As we questioned earlier, there is no significant difference between human embryos on day 14, day 13, and day 15. At the same time, medical practice has proven that the view that primitive spinal cord stripes appear on the 14th day of human embryos is not entirely correct. Some primitive spinal cord stripes appear on the 21st day of human embryos, while others appear earlier than the 14th day. A large number of special medical cases cannot provide sufficient life medicine evidence for the 14 day rule. As another medical basis for setting the 14 day rule, the fact that human embryos will feel pain on the 14th day also raises questions in medical practice. Secondly, the 14 day rule does not fundamentally address issues such as the nature and essence of human embryos, as well as when life arises. In the absence of resolving preliminary issues, setting a time point for regulating the utilization of human embryos based on biological events that do not have universal significance is actually a logical rupture. However, even though most people, including myself, question the scientificity and rationality of the 14 day rule, why was it ultimately established and adopted by some countries, including China? The reason is that the design of this rule tends to be policy driven, and the Warnock Committee has refused to provide a value position for rule design from the beginning. Instead, it seeks consensus on the basis of maximizing procedural justice and fully respecting diverse values. We can say that it has been successful as a policy tool, but we must also believe that reality ultimately cannot derive what should be, and the widespread application of the 14 day rule ultimately cannot prove its scientific and ethical legitimacy.

In fact, the traditional 14 day rule strictly limits the regulatory time for human embryonic scientific research to the 14th day, which has substantially hindered the development of medicine in practice. In life medicine research, the 14th to 28th day of human embryonic development is known as the "black box" of human development. During this window period, human embryos are prone to various congenital abnormalities, leading to problems such as spontaneous abortion and birth defects. We can only adjust the research time of human embryos appropriately based on their development, so that scientists can better understand the development process of human embryos, reduce miscarriage rates, improve the success rate of in vitro fertilization, and thus generate enormous scientific and social value. Of course, some scholars may also raise doubts, believing that adjusting the 14 day rule to flexibly control the research time of human embryos will lead to a moral landslide, because once we take the first step of extending the time limit, it is highly likely that we cannot stop. I cannot agree with this point. Firstly, the 14 day rule was originally a strategy proposed by the Warnock Committee through a series of calculations and interest calculations under the technological conditions at that time. The proposal of this strategy was not a substantive solution to ethical issues, but rather a part of policy tools, based on respect for the diverse values of human embryonic load. Secondly, adjusting the time limit of human embryo research appropriately and flexibly grasping it does not necessarily lead to moral decline, because if there are strict review and regulatory procedures, risks will not always exist and continue to ferment. At the same time, if the 14 day rule itself is not a substantive moral solution to technical ethical issues, then changes to it are only a matter of adapting to the situation. Moreover, practice has proven that when designing policies in controversial areas, we need to constantly adjust them based on technological advancements and ethical thinking. Based on this, in May 2021, the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) released the "Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation". The organization calls for adjusting the 14 day rule and provides procedural recommendations for adjusting the rules. If the 14 day rule will eventually retire from the pedestal and step out of the historical stage, what kind of rule setting can shoulder the mission of human embryo research rules? The key to solving this problem still lies in the method of identifying the attributes of human embryos, and we need to focus on the possibility of their utilization after determining their attributes. As mentioned earlier, the human embryo is an incomplete human being and a "continuum" in the process of forming an "adult human". Faced with the contradiction between subjectivity and objectivity, we need to use dialectical thinking methods to solve problems. Do we focus more on the "human" nature or the "material" nature of human embryos when determining their attributes? The solution to this problem is not completely determined at a certain point in time, we need to determine it based on the specific situation and the developmental status of the human embryo. We need to pay attention to the fact that humans are both "human being" and "human coming" in their formation. The existence of this fact also constitutes a middle ground: we do not use certain characteristics as a measure of individual status, but rather define the magnitude of human embryonic status based on the potential that these characteristics may have during development. This requires us to follow a gradual and dynamic path when confirming the status of human embryos. Placing the confirmation of the status of human embryos in a dynamic development process and moving towards a gradual recognition path can avoid the mechanical and rigid nature of traditional recognition methods and improve the flexibility of institutional design.

2.3 The combination of scientific support and ethical argumentation: the basic strategy for the "progressive" identification of human embryonic attributes

The gradual identification process of human embryonic attributes is essentially a process of seeking certainty as much as possible in uncertainty. Uncertainty arises from the gradual changes in the human embryonic lattice and the dynamic increase in magnitude, making it difficult for us to clearly grasp which of the subjectivity and objectivity attached to the human embryo is dominant. Certainty originates from the construction of public forums, which involves open and equal consultations between scientists and ethicists, as well as feasible and reasonable suggestions and solutions jointly proposed by both parties. The process of seeking certainty in uncertainty is the process of gradually establishing consensus among all parties. From this, we will find that the "gradual" identification of human embryonic attributes requires two pivot points: one is scientific guidance, and the other is ethical argumentation. For a long time in the past, there has been an irreconcilable gap between scientific researchers and ethical scholars regarding the identification of human embryonic properties. The separation of views between the two is due to the confrontation between science and ethics since the emergence of modern science, and its deep logic is determined by the prior structure of the subject object dichotomy and the dichotomy between humans and nature in modern science. Modern science emphasizes the objectivity of knowledge and excludes all subjective judgments. It is based on experiments and mathematics, pursues the practicality and utilitarianism of knowledge, and advocates value free and ethical norms guided by utilitarianism. However, as time progressed, the disconnect between science and ethics eventually came to an end, and the collapse of rational faith ultimately led to a crisis of humanity in Europe. Faced with this catastrophe, people have discovered the irrationality of the dichotomy between facts and values, calling for the value load of science and the perfect combination of truth and kindness. It is the combination of science and ethics that provides the possibility for scientific researchers and ethicists to reach a consensus on the confirmation of human embryonic attributes.

The gradual identification of human embryonic attributes must first follow the basic logic of life evolution. In medicine, primitive spinal cord stripes begin to appear around two to three weeks of human embryonic development, at which point the embryo begins to differentiate into various tissues and organs. It began to show pulse and blood circulation at the end of the fourth week, and brainwaves and initial brain function appeared at the end of the eighth week. The bioelectric phenomenon is a fundamental characteristic of life activities, and the activity of nerve cells in the human brain forms electrical vibrations, which reflects its existence as life. Setting aside ethical arguments and solely based on scientific research, as a human embryo with both subject and object duality, before the appearance of primitive spinal cord stripes, the objectivity of the human embryo was dominant, and the magnitude of its position was relatively low. At this time, researchers can study the human embryo. From the second to the eighth week, the human embryo begins to take on a humanoid form, with the outer, middle, and inner layers gradually developing into the nervous system, cardiovascular system, urinary system, respiratory system, and digestive system. At this point, the properties of the human embryo begin to transition from objectivity to subjectivity. During this period, the human embryo exists as a potential fetus or human, and it is no longer just a biological group of cells. As a potential member of society, the law needs to provide advance protection for its intrinsic value, namely human dignity. It can be said that from this stage onwards, the subjectivity of the human embryo gradually surpasses objectivity and takes a dominant position, and scientific research will be prohibited. However, what we need to consider is whether the second, third, and eighth weeks directly determine the way medical practice treats human embryos? The answer is negative. The true solution to the problem requires ethical intervention, thereby strengthening the concern for the dignity of human embryos and their associated subjects. The time for ethical intervention is after the scientific conclusion appears and before the medical operation occurs. If the scientific conclusion is that the objectivity of the object of medical operation, namely the human embryo, is greater than the subjectivity at that time, and the ethical argument also reaches the same conclusion, then medical operation can proceed smoothly; If ethical arguments question the claims of scientific conclusions, then medical procedures must be suspended. At this point, researchers and ethics committees need to debate and negotiate, and both parties need to form a consensus. If both parties cannot reach a consensus, the medical operation of human embryos will be forced to terminate. From this, we can infer that the "progressive" approach to determining the attributes of human embryos advocates for a scientific community that precedes an ethical community. Firstly, the scientific community conducts internal discussions based on scientific logic and proposes medical solutions; Secondly, the scientific community engages in debates and consultations on medical plans with the ethical community, maintaining openness and transparency throughout the process, and adhering to equality and mutual trust. This recognition method avoids the rigidity of the 14 day rule. In the determination of the ethical and legal status of human embryos, it does not emphasize a certain point in time and deify its role. Instead, based on a cautious attitude and the composite effect of science and ethics, it flexibly grasps the attributes of human embryos on the basis of weighing the interests of all parties involved in the load of human embryos.

2.4 Humility and openness: the basic stance for the gradual recognition of human embryonic attributes

The combination of scientific support and ethical reasoning can help us establish a more reasonable way to determine the attributes of human embryos, but we still need to note that scientific decisions and ethical defenses are made by subjective individuals who cannot guarantee the absolute objectivity and fairness of the conclusions. Therefore, in the process of identifying the attributes of human embryos, we should maintain a great degree of caution. This cautious attitude is what we should hold when dealing with human embryos themselves. More precisely, we should be wary of the way of thinking exhibited by the identification of human embryo attributes. The way people act and handle things begins with their way of thinking. In recent years, more and more scholars have begun to notice that the identification of human embryonic attributes faces many legal and ethical dilemmas, and an important reason is that human thinking is mainly manifested as instrumental rationality. The thinking mode of instrumental rationality originates from the establishment of human subjectivity and the expansion of subjective thinking. It is specifically manifested as a computational thinking mode, which eventually develops into calculation and strategic thinking. Calculation is different from computation: computation only means using reason to reason in mathematical logic; The subjective thinking involved in calculation demonstrates an expectation and scheme. In an era where humans have to some extent succumbed to interests, humans reduce everything to a certain market value, that is, to consider objective things with utility, and the goal of calculating thinking is to constantly pursue the maximization of utility. Under the domination of this mode of thinking, "the predictability of nature is impersonated as the only key to the world's secrets, and predictable nature is regarded as the real world that takes away all human efforts and simplifies human imagination into mere calculating thoughts. If strategic thinking is placed in the field of identifying the attributes of human embryos, all parties will pursue commercial interests attached to human embryos without any bottom line and tap into their value potential, without paying attention to the adverse consequences such as the infringement of dignity caused by excessive technological operations on human embryos. This indifferent attitude of 'not caring about oneself, hanging high' is ultimately dangerous, as it can lead people into absolute survival difficulties.

In order to prevent the occurrence of negative consequences under strategic thinking, we should be vigilant in the process of determining the attributes of human embryos, and make wise choices after comprehensively considering the interests of all parties and fully assessing the risks. At present, regarding this issue, China's legislation is relatively empty, and various sectors of society are calling for accelerating the pace of legislation. The author believes that the establishment of the system for determining the attributes of human embryos should maintain humility. On the one hand, it is necessary to avoid hasty legislation and extreme positions, reserve necessary flexibility and various possibilities for future development, and on the other hand, minimize risks. For the potential damage risks that technology may cause, we should choose to trust it or not. We should adopt a strict and high-pressure stance towards behaviors that may touch the bottom line of human dignity, and should not allow the practice of these technological operations. We should impose the strictest conditions and restrictions on these technological operations. Of course, in the process of determining the attributes of human embryos, on the one hand, great caution should be exercised, and on the other hand, excessive negativity should be avoided to prevent the medical value of human embryos from being effectively developed. In the field of science, we advocate for scientific freedom and even scientific supremacy, and strive to provide convenient conditions for technological development to the greatest extent possible. Because only by developing science and technology can human society better evolve and advance. After confirming the properties of human embryos, it is undoubtedly necessary to be cautious when scientifically utilizing them. However, if we panic excessively, it can also lead to the inability to meet the practical needs of society, thereby hindering its progress and development. Although the ban on the scientific research and utilization of human embryos can fundamentally eliminate all risks, humanity will also lose the benefits brought by science and technology as a result.

3.The future direction of rules for the ownership, inheritance, and disposal of human embryos

The purpose of breaking through the theory of human embryo attributes will eventually point to legislative and judicial practice. We will clarify the ethical status and legal attributes of human embryos as the pre procedure, in order to carry out the scientific and reasonable construction of the relevant rules of human embryos in China. The author believes that the gradual recognition of the status of human embryos and the dual nature of the subject and object of human embryos require us to adopt a position and posture in legislative design under the realistic dilemma of crossing the river by feeling the stones: we should not only maintain the subjectivity, intrinsic value, and human dignity contained in human embryos, but also construct a more open, inclusive, and technologically advanced new framework, adopting a humble yet open legislative position. After clarifying the identification of the attributes of human embryos, we need to design specific legislation on human embryos. In current judicial practice, disputes arising from human embryos mainly include unclear ownership of rights, chaotic inheritance order, and improper disposal methods. Therefore, the improvement of legislation on human embryos should also revolve around these three key issues.

3.1 Making agreements the primary way to resolve disputes over human embryos

At present, there is no unified opinion in domestic and foreign judicial practice on whether agreements can be used to resolve legal disputes arising from human embryos, nor has a relatively complete consistency rule been formed. Even in practice, conflicting judgments may arise. For example, A Z. v.  B. Z. Case and Kass v The Kass case, although both cases occurred in the United States, had vastly different verdicts: the former's ruling excluded pending matters related to human embryos from the scope of contractual freedom based on public policy; The latter's judgment is based on individual autonomy, advocating that matters related to human embryos can be determined through agreements. The author believes that the former judgment is inappropriate because, firstly, public policy, as a limiting condition for autonomy of will, cannot find legitimacy reasons in traditional legal theory. Secondly, based on the analysis of the attributes of human embryos in the previous text, although human embryos have the potential to develop into adults, they cannot be completely equivalent to humans. At a certain stage, they are more similar to objects and belong exclusively to both spouses. Therefore, spouses have the right to decide the fate and ownership of human embryos without violating public order, good customs, and legal prohibitions. Furthermore, we should face up to the current legislative gap. If we cannot resolve disputes regarding human embryos through contracts, many conflicts and confusion will arise in the absence of rules, and unnecessary judicial costs will also increase. On the contrary, the latter's judgment is relatively appropriate, because firstly, it acknowledges the fact that human embryos have physical attributes, but does not deny the inherent value and subjective interests attached to them. Secondly, it is a necessary requirement for both spouses to reach an agreement voluntarily and autonomously to resolve potential disputes that may arise in the future, in order to promote equality and contractual freedom for all. Furthermore, the agreement between both parties can greatly reduce future uncertainty and provide clear guidance for resolving potential disputes in the future. Therefore, in the absence of rules, it is inevitable for us to choose agreements as the primary way to handle disputes over the ownership, inheritance, and disposal of human embryos. But it should be noted that in what sense can both spouses make choices about what matters? We can divide all pending matters into two categories based on whether they involve reproductive rights.

The most important issue related to reproductive rights is the establishment of parental identity. We need to break the traditional mindset that couples get married for the purpose of having children, and the offspring naturally belong to the male party. In traditional society, the purpose of an adult man getting married was to complete the task of reproducing offspring as soon as possible. Therefore, the act of marriage, even if made by both spouses, is equivalent to a contract of reproduction. If a wife is unable to conceive for a period of time, she will be ridiculed and even kicked out of the house alive by her husband, which can be considered as punishment for her breach of contract. But with the continuous progress of society, people's thoughts are also changing. Indeed, in today's society, the main purpose of marriage for both spouses is still to reproduce offspring, but compared to ancient times, this purpose is no longer irreplaceable. Modern people pursue a life of freedom, and having children is no longer an inevitable goal of marriage. Therefore, according to traditional social logic, we arbitrarily believe that marriage between husband and wife means that both parties have reached an agreement on reproduction, and that the human embryo naturally belongs to the man, which is no longer in line with the requirements of the times. At present, both spouses should enjoy equal reproductive rights, including both the right to have children and the right not to have children. Unless explicitly stipulated by legislation, no country, organization, or individual can create parental identity for anyone through technological or legal means. In the application of artificial assisted reproductive technology, the establishment of parental identity should be based on the genuine and clear consent of both spouses, and the premise of using technological means to create parental identity is that the intentions between spouses are consistent. Matters that do not involve reproductive rights mainly include the inheritance, gift, adoption, destruction, and scientific research utilization of human embryos. The human embryo may be left unclaimed due to accidental injury or other reasons (failure to renew the contract, loss of contact with the hospital, etc.), and both spouses and medical institutions should make an agreement in advance on the subsequent treatment path of the human embryo. At present, the legal provisions for resolving the above issues are still blank, and we can only protect and manage them through agreements. Medical institutions and both spouses should clearly stipulate in the agreement how to handle human embryos when the medical institution is unable to establish contact with both parties or when the parties default on paying fees. In addition to general agreements on inheritance and gift giving, we can also draw on foreign legislative experience to make clear agreements on embryo adoption, scientific research utilization, and destruction, in order to reduce the waste of medical resources and the occurrence of subsequent disputes.

When an agreement cannot be reached, we need to weigh the interests of multiple parties, based on the principle of fairness, considering both equality between spouses and intergenerational equality. Firstly, we need to consider equality between both spouses. In traditional beliefs, women's own physiological functions and their special status in the process of pregnancy often lead to greater sacrifices than men, but this cannot be a reasonable reason for them to directly enjoy priority in the disposal of human embryos. In the process of human historical development, reproduction is a moral right on the one hand, but on the other hand, it is also an obligation and responsibility, a common obligation and responsibility for both men and women to continue offspring. Men and women are functionally complementary in a sense, and their different roles lead to different division of labor and obligations in terms of reproduction. The process of reproduction requires the participation of both men and women, and the absence of either party can lead to the inability to achieve the purpose of reproduction. From this perspective, the roles of both men and women in the process of reproduction are the same. Of course, it cannot be denied that women contribute more during the reproductive process. For the protection of women, we should emphasize more on their right not to have children to prevent them from being forced to have children. Secondly, we also need to consider intergenerational equality. This is the most important point. We need to reasonably anticipate whether human embryos can obtain a favorable environment to ensure their own survival, health, and development after transplantation, and whether they can fully exercise their legitimate rights without being unreasonably infringed upon. When there is a conflict between parental reproductive rights and the future development interests of offspring, we should realize that as a special existence containing life attributes, the rights enjoyed by offspring carried by human embryos in the future are more important than the reproductive rights of both spouses.

3.2 China's consideration of using familialism as a means of resolving disputes over human embryos

Whether we determine the ownership and disposal rules of human embryos through agreements or non agreements, it is based on the existence of both spouses. If one or both of the spouses die before the implementation of human embryo transfer surgery or when the excess human embryos are still within the preservation period, who should have the right to dispose of the human embryos? The author believes that human embryos embody more of the personal interests of direct elders' blood relatives in blood inheritance. Therefore, direct elders' blood relatives should be limited to inheriting and disposing of embryos while maintaining social welfare and respecting the wishes of the deceased couple before their death. Grandparents and great grandparents of deceased couples may also enjoy this right in specific circumstances. The most important reason why we want to grant direct relatives the right to dispose of human embryos is due to the unique ethical and cultural foundation of our country, which is a family oriented value system.

Compared to the West, Eastern bioethics is considered family oriented. In most clinical practices, individual medical diagnosis and treatment are often the affairs of the entire family, and the determination of medical procedures and nursing plans depends on the joint wishes of the parties involved and family members. This phenomenon reflects a family oriented social philosophy. In traditional Chinese society, the family is the most fundamental element, maintaining everyone's personal emotions and social network. The family has its own social ontological reality, and unless within the family, it is difficult for us to properly evaluate the individual identities of family members. Therefore, in China, the home is the center of social reality.

Traditional Chinese society is based on the patriarchal family system. Individuals living in this system are not atomic entities, they need to be associated with close relatives and in laws. Individuals are surrounded by the family as a whole, and their value lies in the responsibilities and obligations they undertake towards the family as a whole. Of course, while individuals contribute to their families, they also receive the protection of family power.

Based on this, traditional Eastern societies have a strict family management organizational system and a strong sense of kinship. The patrilineal family system is centered around parent-child blood relations, advocating that blood relations are the prerequisite for the emergence of family affection. Under the joint action of blood relations and family affection, individuals and individual families can unite with the larger family. The family ethics derived from the blood relationship has established the communication criteria for Chinese people to deal with people. Mr. Fei Xiaotong called it "the pattern of difference". Under the influence of the patriarchal family concept, the family network in traditional Chinese society vividly embodies the Confucian ethics of orderly growth and separation of kinship. The emphasis on blood ties in traditional China stems from the worship of ancestors. The reproduction of offspring not only ensures the continuity of ancestral bloodlines, but also reflects the merits of ancestors. Bloodline confusion caused by incest or other reasons will be strongly condemned by other members of the family. In this way, blood related reproduction transforms a brief individual's life into a long-lasting succession, and the concept of "biological" is deeply rooted. Based on this, under the Confucian family values, the subject of reproductive rights has a familial nature. There are three types of unfilial behavior, and having no offspring is the greatest. Having children has become a family obligation. Children and grandchildren surround each other's knees, four generations live together, and 'serving the ancestral temple above and passing on to future generations below' are all expressions of human moral emotions towards the family and ancestors. In the 'Yixing Frozen Embryo Case', an accident resulted in the deaths of both spouses, leading to the creation of two 'bereaved families'. The advancement and improvement of technology provide "reproductive insurance" to minimize the risk of "losing one's only child", which means that we can freeze reproductive cells through artificial intervention for future use. Once the only child in the family unfortunately dies, parents or other direct relatives can use frozen embryos to reproduce offspring through artificial assisted reproductive technology, in order to maximize the inheritance of their bloodline.

3.3 Guiding principles for the utilization of human embryos include the prohibition of buying, selling, and restricted scientific research

In addition to designing rules for the ownership and inheritance of human embryos, we also need to pay attention to the non implantable use of human embryos. For this issue, we should implement the principles of prohibition of buying and selling and restricted scientific research utilization. The buying and selling of human embryos is essentially a byproduct of the development of modern life technology. The difference between it and traditional life technology is that it has a strong utilitarian attribute rather than altruistic attribute, which has led to many ethical controversies surrounding the buying and selling of human embryos from the beginning. The buying and selling of human embryos fundamentally regards them as a resource or a commodity, which violates Kant's theory of absolute imperative that humans are the end rather than the means. This behavior erodes people's personal interests, challenges their subjectivity and human dignity. Josephine Quintavare accuses the buying and selling of germ cells as an 'absolute commercialization of human life'. Chinese ethicist Zhai Xiaomei pointed out that the sale of embryos, sperm, and eggs leads to the commercialization of human life, and clearly priced transactions are an extreme damage to human dignity. Therefore, there should be a general consensus on the prohibition of human embryo trading, and those who engage in human embryo trading or intermediary behavior with the intention of profit should be held criminally responsible.

Prohibiting the sale of human embryos does not mean prohibiting the use of human embryos in the medical field and scientific research practice. Of course, whether we can use human embryos for scientific experiments has always been a controversial topic. Most countries prohibit testing on human embryos, with Germany having a particularly strict ban on human embryo testing due to historical reasons. The German Embryo Protection Law strictly prohibits all experimental research on human embryos produced by artificial insemination, including the extraction of cells from human embryos. However, from the perspective of medical progress, human embryo research is not only the main means of treating infertility, but also an important path for humans to improve treatment plans for genetic diseases. Therefore, it seems inappropriate for us to impose a comprehensive ban on research on human embryos. At present, some countries and regions allow the use of human embryos for medical purposes. However, when using human embryos as the subject of scientific research, these countries and regions advocate that the relevant technologies should be subject to certain limitations. In 2001, the "Gene Technology Safety Control Law" in Taiwan excluded genetic modification of humans and human embryos. The UK's Human Reproduction and Embryo Research Act has limited access to human embryo research. The bill stipulates that scientific research on human embryos can be conducted, but must be based on the following purposes: promoting the development of infertility treatment, increasing understanding of the causes of congenital diseases, strengthening understanding of the reasons for miscarriage, developing more effective contraceptive methods, preventing genetic and chromosomal abnormalities, and enhancing understanding of pre implantation human embryos. Based on the above regulations, except for countries affected by certain historical factors, most countries and regions have not always completely banned the scientific research and utilization of human embryos.

Conclusion

Since the 18th National Congress, the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping as the core and the Chinese government have attached great importance to ethical governance and legal guidance of science and technology. At present, there is still significant controversy in the theoretical community regarding the identification of the attributes of human embryos, and legislation on human embryos is hovering at a crossroads, facing many uncertainties and choices. It is an urgent issue to determine where the law should guide technology towards. We acknowledge that it is impossible and unrealistic to achieve the improvement of legislation on human embryos in a short period of time, but the absence of laws can lead to confusion in medical practice due to the lack of necessary rules and guidance. The main controversy in current legislation is whether the non-commercial use of human embryos will result in the degradation of the personal interests attached to them? To solve this problem, we first need to optimize the way in which the attributes of human embryos are recognized. Secondly, we need to roughly define a legal boundary for the use of human embryos in legislation, adopting a limited, dynamic, phased, and adjustable licensing strategy. Whenever the ethical risks of scientific research are reduced, legislation will be more open. However, the premise of legislation is that we need to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the risks and functions of human embryonic scientific research, and determine the degree of scientific research permission based on risk classification and the degree of safety assurance. The conditional permission for the utilization of human embryos, as well as the dynamic adjustment of the scope of the permission, is a concrete implementation of the principles of legal restraint and openness. Our attitude towards legislative regulation in this unique field is to both benchmark the present and consider the future.