A socio-scientific issue is an issue (people have different opinions or viewpoints about it) that has both biological and social implications (consequences). PGD is therefore a socio-scientific issue, because many people have differing opinions about whether PGD should be allowed, and for what cases, and it has both biological consequences and social consequences. I will be exploring these opinions and implications in order to weigh up the significance of these consequences of PGD, so that I can form a personal opinion about PGD.
The Catholic Church is against PGD, for several reasons. They believe, because of their religion, that all life is a gift from God. They consider life to begin at fertilisation, and therefore as PGD implies the discarding
…show more content…
of embryos, they are against PGD on the grounds that it ends life, and also that it implies some lives are more valuable than others.
They believe that as life begins at fertilisation, the embryo is a person with full rights that should be respected, and therefore discarding an embryo is akin to murder, and is doing harm to a person. “The fruit of human generation from the first moment of existence, that is to say, from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his [or her] bodily and spiritual totality." [2] Therefore, the discarding of embryos, for any reason, is unacceptable. [3]” They also argue that we should not be selecting against genetic conditions as it implies that some lives are more ‘desirable’ than others, and that this is a sign of bad parenting: they believe that love should be unconditional and therefore parents should love their children regardless of genetic conditions, and discarding their ‘children’ with these conditions is not love, “A covenantal understanding of family highlights that family belonging is, of its nature, unconditional, a reflection of God's own unconditional love. The selection of certain traits in embryos introduces a "conditional" dimension into their existence: "Children are admitted to a family only if they pass a test, destroying the fabric of an unfolding
and expansive familial love."” As an extension of this belief, PGD is seen as discrimination against those already living with these conditions, and the babies that could have lived with these conditions. They also argue that the idea of those with genetic conditions being a ‘burden’ is an idea created and fostered by our society’s attitude towards those with disabilities and isn’t valid- “the problems presented by the birth of a child with a disability may have more to do with society and its collective values than with disability…. Accordingly, the argument that selective implantation is in the best interests of children 'who wouldn't want to be born like this', may be no more than a projection of the fears of parents and society and their desire not to be burdened.” They then continue this argument by saying that the ‘burden’ is due to the belief by parents they they will be raising the child on their own, but the Church believes that their religion fosters an environment where the raising of a child is a community duties. Therefore they believe that it is unfair to discriminate against those with disabilities, which they believe PGD does. I personally believe while this argument does have valid points, particularly regarding the concern about the impact of PGD on those with genetic conditions in the community, I don’t believe it is backed up by biological, scientific arguments. The assertion that ‘life is a gift from God’ and therefore embryos shouldn’t be discarded, so PGD shouldn’t be undertaken, is one I disagree with. As I will elaborate on later, I believe that there is nothing wrong with discarding 5-day embryos as they are not yet able to think, feel, or experience pain, based on scientific observations. There are others who argue that parents have a moral obligation to undergo PGD if they know they have a high chance of passing on a genetic condition. Judith F. Daar, a Law professor, and Janet Malek, a Bioethics professor, wrote a paper, “The Case for a Parental Duty to Use Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis for Medical Benefit” in the American Journal of Bioethics arguing that not only is PGD something we should be undertaking, but parents have a duty to undertake it. These professors believe that PGD is so beneficial to the child produced that it outweighs negatives to the point that all parents should undertake PGD if they are at risk of passing on a genetic condition. “We argue that parents who undergo IVF and know or reasonably should know they pose a significant risk of passing a lethal or serious genetic anomaly to their offspring have a legal duty to use PGD to avoid birthing an affected child.” They believe that public healthcare should pay for this so that it is accessible, and that couples should be required to undergo PGD by law. I disagree with this opinion as well. As will be pointed out later on, there are many personal reasons concerning the ethics or biology of PGD that mean people may not wish to undergo the process. I believe couples should have the freedom of choice to weigh up all the implications of PGD, as I myself will be doing, and then make their decision based on their personal opinion of those implications. In NZ there is an activist group, The New Zealand Organisation for Rare Disorders (NZORD), who strongly support the use of PGD. Most members suffer from a genetic condition or they have passed on a genetic condition to their child/ren, and now they promote the access of PGD to everyone who desires to undergo it. Even though not all of them say they would undergo PGD themselves, they believe it should be publically accessible to everyone. These are people who are affected incredibly by the level of care they or their children need, and they believe from their own experiences that couples who wish to not experience this sort of life should be able to use PGD. In interviews conducted by an Otago researcher, they talk about ‘disability’, and arguments from disabled people who believe that PGD discriminates against them. “Fo r example, one mother noted: “and this guy who was blind (a speaker at a disability seminar) 7 had the audacity to say JUST because he was blind, that he didn’t think anyone should be allowed to have genetic testing… he counted himself as disabled (rising incredulity) and argued you shouldn’t stop people having that sort of a life (laughter of disbelief)… what right does he have (to stop access to PGD)? Blindness for this mother could hardly count as disability in comparison with the daily suffering in which her child had been placed. ” All these individuals interviewed had some differing opinions about the ethics of PGD, such as about discarding embryos for their particular condition, but they all supported the right to use PGD as the benefits of a life without these rare disorders is so worthwhile, considering what they had suffered. There is a strong belief of ‘the right to choose’ in the members of this group, and I strongly agree with their opinion. Whether or not someone undergoes PGD should be up to them, but ultimately they should be able to make that choice.
Savulescu also bring up the potential physiological risks associated with sex selection. Some evidence shows that sex selection can be damaging to the embryo however there is not sufficient research to support this claim1. Savulescu involves this claim in premise 1 stating that the risks associated with procedure should be scientifically investigated, as they do not interfere with the morality of sex selection as an end. If the procedure itself needs to be investigated it should according to Savulescu but the morality of having the procedure should not change because of
Typically, parents’ love for their child is unconditional, meaning loving the child in all circumstances. Altering a child before he is born does not show a sign of unconditional love, but quite the contrary. After adjusting these embryos parts of the cells which are not used are disposed of, similar to abortion (Pros and Cons of Designer Babies). In some cases, the parents have the
In Dan Marquis’ article, “Why Abortion is Immoral”, he argues that aborting a fetus is like killing a human being already born and it deprives them of their future. Marquis leaves out the possible exceptions to abortion that include: a threat to the mom’s life, contraceptives, and pregnancy by rape. First, I will explain Marquis’ pro-life argument in detail about his statements of why abortion is morally wrong. Like in many societies, killing an innocent human being is considered morally wrong, just like in the United States. Second, I will state my objection to Marquis’ argument by examining the difference between a human being’s already born future compared to a potential fetus’s future.
There are many different beliefs floating around Christian as well as secular circles as to what it means to be “pro-life”. Some claim that this view equates all forms of contraception to abortion while others claim that to be “pro-life” one must only be against abortion. In his book The Pro-Life/Choice Debate, Mark Herring summarizes the Humanae Vitae, a document released by Pope Paul VI in the late 1960s, saying “it warns against using contraceptives and engaging in sexual relations for their own sake…” The stance that will be taken in this paper will be that to be “pro-life” is to be against abortion and not contraception. Equating all forms of contraception to that of abortion is an ill-founded and uneducated claim that does more to hurt the perception and potential power of the pro-life movement than it does to help it. It allows the discussion to veer far off the path, as can be seen in Christina Page’s book How the Pro-Choice Movemen...
...ns and the ethical and moral beliefs behind the issue will again challenge the control of many governments in their role in human reproduction.
With the increased rate of integrating In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), there has been a steep inclination within the associated needs of specifications. Observably, the development of babies using scientific measures was initially formulated and specified for developing the diverse range of development associated with the same (Turriziani, 2014). However, these developments are noted to be creating an adverse impact on the natural course of events and subsequently, resulting with an adverse impact on the natural process of the development of babies. The initial integrations within the system of IVF for developing babies have further been initiated with the effective use of science to develop a healthy baby. Hence, the use of such progressions can be argued as not hampering the ethical needs associated with the same. Conversely, the initial progression within the same and the changes in the use of such practices are identified as unethical, as it has been acting as a threat in the natural course of development of embryos and altering the natural course of events, suspected to be imposing significant influence on infant mortality (Turriziani,
I believe, that if you don’t think you are capable of giving your child a decent life, that they will be able to be successful in, you should consider your all options, maybe being a parent isn’t right for you. Every child deserves happiness and I hate seeing people treat their children poorly, abusing them, and neglecting them. If you do not want kids, you shouldn’t have them, no child should live feeling unwanted. I also stand by the fact that it is no one’s business unless you include them in the fact that you are having an abortion, I see few ways in how it may affect the rest of the world, if you decide not to have a child or not. All women reserve the right of privacy, and of course a choice. It isn't up to the government to tell women to give birth or not, and that’s why the law is the way it is. According to ("EsMBA." Five Major Pro Choice Abortion Arguments. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Aug. 2016. )Most women were using a method of birth control that didn't work properly. By denying women abortions, who never intended to have children or become pregnant, forces them have children they don't want. Unwanted childbirth can have a severely negative impact on a person’s life, forcing them to raise another human, and take time away from that person’s necessities, and effecting every single day
"This is the heart of our struggle over abortion, for it is a struggle between gods." said United Methodist pastor Reverend Marc Rogers. "The worship of this false god, the god of abstraction, is killing us literally - - killing not only unborn children, but killing our nation and our church." The FIGO Committee for the Study of Ethical Aspects for Human Reproduction does not agree with this view. "Selective reduction of a multiple pregnancy is not an abortion procedure because the intention is that the pregnancy continues," says the Committee. In many cases, if no fetuses are aborted, all of the fetuses will die. A couple that has had their first success at getting pregnant after a long time of infertility, whether by in vetro fertilization or through sex, is not guaranteed to have a second chance at having children. Often, a fetus in the womb will contract disease that could potentially spread to the others, also causing risk for failure. Using selective reduction to increase the chances of having any children at all instead of no children should not be looked down upon by anyone.
Also, mothers carry the baby in their womb for so long, and getting rid of it is wrong on so many levels. In the mainstream Christianity, abortions are not considered in the bible, but it is not viewed as something good. However, the Catholic and Orthodox Church oppose late-term abortion in almost every situation. Hinduism has many varied views towards it, but the original and traditional text condemns elective abortions. In the Islamic faith, late-term abortion is not permissible because it is over four months of pregnancy.
In the present day there are new forms of technology being developed on a regular basis that make what was once impossible a normal reality. With this being said, many individuals throw caution to the wind and decide to take action on their every want and need. When it comes to the process of procreating and bringing a child into this world, parents can find themselves hoping and wishing for one gender over another. In order to ensure that the gender they want is what they get parents can go through variations of processes in order to select the desired gender of their baby. Many in today’s world have deemed these sorts of practices unethical and immoral and some forms of religion refuse the idea of it. Ideas centered around selecting the gender of ones offspring has been a constantly ascending issue due to the fact that it clashes between the parents wishes and what is right for the world and the natural process. Going through with gender selection processes poses the threat that the offspring will simply be mediums of their parents desires rather than the child they were meant to be. This could jump-start a trend in the direction of both good and bad selection of unborn babies features and characteristics (Robertson 3). Selecting the gender of ones unborn baby for nonmedical reasons is unethical and immoral due to discarding unwanted eggs, discrepancies regarding religion, gender bias selections and instability, and the overall disruption of the natural processes for our future generations development.
In contrast, the idea of in-vitro fertilization is also about creating life, but this modern-day parallel is more beneficial to humanity. With the growth of our modern society, scientists have found the way to help people who can't have babies due to fertility issues or same-sex couples: in-vitro fertilization, also called test-tube conception, medical procedure in which mature egg cells are removed from a woman, fertilized with male sperm outside the body, and inserted into the uterus of the same or another woman for normal gestation. (Britannica). The benefit of in-vitro fertilization to women those have the disability is utterly priceless. Not only bring to women the right to give birth, many single mothers can also have babies of their own with the help of sperm donors, resulting wanted babies without the genetic diseases or handicap. However, many Christians oppose the concept of in-vitro fertilization acidly, because they prefer the natural ways which God has given to mankind in the very beginning. Since God is the only one who has the divine power to create life, some people go against that scientific method and criticize scientists as they have been imitating God’s action. Frankly, God has given the knowledge of using
Essentially, they value a fetus life more than a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body. To these activists, choosing abortion is the equivalent of murder, and that they are “playing god” by aborting their children. They also feel that on the other hand that abortion is a dangerous procedure, and puts the mother at risk (hli.org 3). Anti-abortion leaders argue that there are alternatives to abortion, such as adoption. Adoption may provide a warm and happy home, although often times they are placed in uncaring homes.
...evil. To treat pregnancy as a disease that can be “cured” with methods of contraception and abortion is morally wrong. All people are specially made in the image and likeness of God from the moment of conception. The arguments defending pro-choice all describe how there are certain circumstances when an abortion must occur. However, unless the mother’s life is absolutely threatened, abortion is a sin that ends the life of a child of God.
I believe that parents are not morally justified in having a child merely to provide life saving medical treatment to another child or family member, but that this does not mean that the creation of savior siblings is morally impermissible. By having a child solely to provide life saving medical treatment, you are treating this child merely as a means rather than an end to the individual child. By having the child solely as a means to save another, you are violating this savior sibling in that you are treating them as a source of spare parts that can be used by the sickly child in order to solely promote the prolonged life of the currently sick child. This view that having a child merely as a way to provide medical treatment does not consider the multitude of other avenues that this newborn child can take, and presupposes that the child will only be used for the single purpose of providing life saving medical treatment through use of stems cells or organ donation. What this view fails to consider is that these savior siblings are valued by families for so much more than just as a human bag of good cells and organs that can be used to save the life of the original child. Instead, these savior siblings can be valued as normal children themselves, in that they can be valued in the same way that any other child who is born is valued, yet at the same time they will also be able to provide life-saving treatment to their sibling. My view runs parallel to the view held by Claudia Mills who argues that it is acceptable to have a savior sibling, yet at the same time we can not have a child for purely instrumental motives, and instead should more so value the child for the intrinsic worth that they have. Mills presents her argument by puttin...
The main opposition to the use of contraception comes from the Catholic church. The Natural Law views a fertilized egg to be a tiny human life and states that all human life is created in God’s image and that we are all deserving of the right to live. It also states that no person can choose to take the life of an innocent individual (Leies 2010). However supporters of the use of contraception will take a utilitarian view and focus on the outcomes of all the potential actions and their consequences to determine the best ...