Artificial Insemination
There are different types of responsibility involved in human reproduction. With modern biomedical technology the question of “who is responsible?” comes up a lot more. Artificial insemination is one of newer forms of technology that involves that question, which includes moral, and social responsibility. In “Artificial Insemination” Munson raises the question not only of who’s responsible but also what responsibilities and rights the sperm donor has and where fatherhood comes into place in that situation. He argues that the responsibilities of the donor are severed from the child produced but has the responsibility of quality, meaning informing the bank of any diseases and family history.
…show more content…
Munson uses this assumption of people to further explain the difference between sexual intercourse and sperm donation. The sperm donor is not responsible for a woman becoming pregnant because “the sperm donor does nothing to impregnate the recipient of his sperm”. It is said that he is the biological father but not the moral father because he is not the causal agent. That makes the sperm donor not placed to, “ ‘accept the consequences of his actions,’ when this means accepting the responsibility for the child produced by the use of his sperm”. One can agree to this because it is known that a sperm donor involved in the causing of a woman to be pregnant. It just so happens that his sperm gets picked for the …show more content…
He used another analogy where a terrorist fills up a hospital with an explodable gas and Munson turns on the light, which causes the gas to explode to explain his view. Since he caused the action unsuspectingly, he is only “causally responsible” just like the doctor that performs artificial insemination to impregnate a woman. This analogy does not best describe the situation. Munson, in his situation, had no idea that there was a flammable gas filled up in the hospital. So, him turning on the lights and causing an explosion is much different than a doctor performing artificial insemination. This is because the doctor knows what he is doing and what the outcome of his actions will be. However, this does not make the doctor morally responsible for the child like Munson was
In kilner’s case study “Having a baby the new-fashioned way”, present a story that can be relatable to a lot of families struggling to have a child. This is a dilemma that can be controversial and ethical in own sense. The couple that were discussed in the case study were Betty and Tom. Betty and Tom who are both in their early forties who have struggled to bear children. Dr. Ralph Linstra from Liberty University believes that “Fertility can be taken for granted”. Dr. Ralph talks about how many couples who are marriage may run into an issue of bearing a child and turn to “medical science” to fix the issue. He discusses that “God is author of life and he can open and close the womb”. That in it’s self presents how powerful God.
Recent high profile cases, films and books all around the world including the UK, Australia and the United States have brought to the public’s attention a new type of IVF. ‘Embryo Selection’ meaning ‘Embryos are fertilised outside the body and only those with certain genes are selected and implanted in the womb.’ Henceforth meaning that doctors are now able to select specific embryo’s and implant them into the mother of who may have another sick child in order to gain genetic material such as bone marrow which will match the ill-fated child and therefore hopefully be able to save their life. Creating a ‘saviour sibling’. ‘A child conceived through selective in vitro fertilization as a potential source of donor organs or cells for an existing brother or sister with a life-threatening medical condition’ a definition given by Oxford Dictionaries (1.0). Cases of this are happening all around the globe and many are highly documented about. The most famous case could be noted as in the fictional book of ‘My Sisters Keeper’ By Jodi Picoult. I will further discuss this throughout my dissertation and how books and films can affect the view on certain ethical subjects. Furthermore, I am also going to discuss a range of factors such as certain religious beliefs and the physical creation of saviour siblings compared to the creation of designer babies. Strong views are held by many both for and against the creation of saviour siblings.
Our culture has a stringent belief that creating new life if a beautiful process which should be cherished. Most often, the birth process is without complications and the results are a healthy active child. In retrospect, many individuals feel that there are circumstances that make it morally wrong to bring a child into the world. This is most often the case when reproduction results in the existence of another human being with a considerably reduced chance at a quality life. To delve even further into the topic, there are individuals that feel they have been morally wronged by the conception in itself. Wrongful conception is a topic of debate among many who question the ethical principles involved with the sanctity of human life. This paper will analyze the ethical dilemmas of human dignity, compassion, non-malfeasance, and social justice, as well the legal issues associated with wrongful conception.
The addition of a child into a family’s home is a happy occasion. Unfortunately, some families are unable to have a child due to unforeseen problems, and they must pursue other means than natural pregnancy. Some couples adopt and other couples follow a different path; they utilize in vitro fertilization or surrogate motherhood. The process is complicated, unreliable, but ultimately can give the parents the gift of a child they otherwise could not have had. At the same time, as the process becomes more and more advanced and scientists are able to predict the outcome of the technique, the choice of what child is born is placed in the hands of the parents. Instead of waiting to see if the child had the mother’s eyes, the father’s hair or Grandma’s heart problem, the parents and doctors can select the best eggs and the best sperm to create the perfect child. Many see the rise of in vitro fertilization as the second coming of the Eugenics movement of the 19th and early 20th century. A process that is able to bring joy to so many parents is also seen as deciding who is able to reproduce and what child is worthy of birthing.
There are other factors in determining what rights a person has in a given circumstance. None of her arguments apply to pregnancy in which sex was voluntary and no effort was made to prevent pregnancy. She argues that abortion is permissible in three types of cases: (1) Rape (violinist experiment), (2) Threat to mothers’ life (death), (3) Cases where attempts were made to prevent the pregnancy (failure of contraception). At the end of her paper she says we must not fall below the standard of minimally decent Samaritans (MDS). However, she doesn’t really says what that standard
One popular objection is: if it is immoral to deprive someone of a future, or a “future-like-ours”, then it is immoral to deprive a sperm or egg of a “future-like-ours”. Because it is immoral to deprive someone of a future, one must conclude that it is immoral to deprive a sperm or egg of a “future-like-ours”. This objection is in reference to different modes of contraception, such as condoms and birth control. Nevertheless, the biggest problem with Marquis’ argument that allowed for this objection was its indecisiveness and improbability to draw a definitive line. Marquis criticized the pro-lifers and pro-choicers for being unable to have a definitive definition and made the same mistake in his own argument. One could object to his argument by merely questioning where the decision would end; are we to believe that one is depriving a sperm or an egg a future when we use contraception? Another important note is the idea that a “future-like-ours” is even an even more ambiguous term than a “person” or “human being”. It is impossible for the average individual to know which of his sperm or her eggs carries a genetic abnormality that may cause their child to not have a
In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) is a complex series of procedures used to help those who want children but struggle with infertility. The process consists of extracting eggs from a woman and collecting a man’s sperm sample then manually combining them in a lab dish. Once the embryo(s) are created they are transferred to a woman’s uterus. IVF is commonly used in woman who cannot conceive on their own due to different reasonings. “These include but are not limited to blocked or damaged fallopian tubes, male factor infertility, woman with ovulation disorders, genetic disorders, woman who have had their fallopian tubes removed and unexplained infertility.” (American Pregnancy)
Women that push for an abortion do not always have a partner that agrees and supports their decision for terminating the pregnancy. If the father is willing to support and care for the fetus, it is wrong for a woman to go against his wishes and follow through with an abortion. For a father to want to be involved in the fetus’s life means he is willing to take on the responsibilities of having a child so he should have a say if his fetus should be terminated or not. The Becoming A Father/Refusing Fatherhood article states, “To be a father-as-progenitor a man simply has to provide the sperm that leads to conception, whereas to be a father-as-carer a man has to take on a variety of social roles. The roles associated with the father-as-carer included disciplinarian, breadwinner/provider, guardian, moral compass, sex role model, guide and friend” (Ives 78). To have a father-as-carer in an offspring’s life gives a woman no reason to get an abortion. The woman is consciously aware of the outcomes of intercourse when willingly performing in such an act. In the Rethinking Roe V. Wade article it states, “if a woman concedes to voluntary sexual intercourse, she has incurred a responsibility to care for the fetus, since she is responsible for its existence and subsequent dependence on her body for sustenance. Consequently, she has a moral obligation to sustain it until birth, an obligation that ought to be legally enforced by proscribing abortions” (Manninen 41). The female is aware of the consequences when engaging in sexual acts so it should be her responsibility to carry the fetus to term. The presence of a partner that is willing to stay by the women’s side and support her during the pregnancy does not give her a reason to obtain an abort...
Donor-assisted insemination is a process that enables a woman to conceive a child through the donated sperm/egg of a male or female. Donor insemination is a technique that has been used around the world for fifty eight years. This technique is often used in situations where a man or woman suffer from infertility and are unable to produce children on their own. Donor-insemination is also used to help gay people or single people have children. In these cases, the child grow up to never know their genetic father/mother. The children born from donor- assisted reproduction only have access to basic, non-identifying information such as: race, height, eye-color, etc. This is not enough information to settle the donor-inseminated (DI) children's desire to know about their parents. I personally think the DI children have a natural right to know where they came from. Many DI children say that knowing about their genetic parent is something that they desire more than anything in the world. These children have a right to know about their genetic background, not only for themselves, but for their children as well.
A woman enters into a contract that consists on her getting pregnant with a strangers sperms, and after the baby is born, to give up the baby. The stranger is going to pay the medical expenses and $10,000 in exchange of claiming all the parental rights when the baby is born. The stranger is a good person who has not been able to have children on his own. Why does the morality of the action may seem doubtful? Philosopher Elizabeth Anderson wrote an essay called “is Women’s Labor a Commodity?” to explain in detail the reasons of commercial surrogacy being morally wrong. In her paper, Anderson explains that commercial surrogacy treats children and parental rights as objects that could be bought and sold for personal convenience. According to
Ricci, Mariella Lombardi. "Assisted Procreation And Its Relationship To Genetics And Eugenics." Human Reproduction & Genetic Ethics 15.1 (2009): 9-29. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Apr. 2014.
Gestational surrogacy, especially when it involves commercial surrogates, challenges the status quo in the ethical theory of reproduction, because with this technology the process of producing a child can no longer remain a private matter. Now a public contract exists between two parties, the couple and the surrogate ...
Arguments against commercial surrogacy typically revolve around the idea that surrogacy is a form of child-selling. Critics believe that commercial surrogacy violates both women’s and children’s rights. In addition, by making surrogacy contracts legally enforceable, courts will follow the contract rather than choose what is best for the child. However, in her article “Surrogate Mothering: Exploring Empowerment” Laura Pudry is not convinced by these arguments.
One of these moral dilemmas is that genetic engineering changes the traditional dynamic that occurs between the parent and the offspring. This issue arose over the possibility of having a human embryo with three genetic parents which is now possible due to genetic engineering. The procedure in question “involves transplanting the chromosomes from a single-cell embryo or from an unfertilized egg into a donor egg or embryo from which the chromosomes have been removed”(Foht). The procedure itself is very useful for women with mitochondrial disorders but the issue involved with this is that the embryo would technically have three biological parents. There needs to be a real concern about “the way genetic engineering can alter the relationship between the generations from one of parents accepting the novelty and spontaneous uniqueness of their children to one where parents use biotechnology to choose and control the biological nature of their children”(Foht). There is a special relationship between children and their parents that may be disappearing very soon due to these techniques. Children could be born never truly knowing one of their genetic parents. If these procedures continue to prosper people will have to “accept arrangements that split apart the various biological and social aspects of parenthood, and that deliberately create
Surrogacy is becoming extremely popular as a way for people to build their families and women to have a source of income. Many people have various reasons for their opposition to it whether it be by comparing it to prostitution or disagreeing with how military wives take advantage of the Tricare insurance. Lorraine Ali states in her article “The Curious Lives of Surrogates” that one of the more popular reasons to oppose surrogacy is that it contradicts, “what we’ve always thought of as an unbreakable bond between mother and child.” However, a woman’s inability to conceive her own children does not determine the absence of a mother to child bond.