For most of people, the only way to conceive a child is through sexual intercourse between a man and a woman by contributing the egg and the sperm into a woman’s womb. In a common practice, this is the only way on how to conceive a child. However, since the growing of time, with parenthood changing all thanks to the assisted reproductive technology (ART), the usual norm of conceiving a child has changed dramatically over the past decades. Lewis Vaughn describes this process to “address the agonizing problem of infertility and the powerful desire that many people have for their children of their own, especially children with whom they have a biological link” (Vaughn 392). The methods of reproductive technology is always understood under the scientific world, nonetheless, it remains a controversial topic within people.
Cynthia Cohen’s article, “ ‘Give Me Children or I Shall Die!’ New Reproductive Technologies and Harm to Children,” discusses evidences that indicate how reproductive technologies cause illnesses and defects to small percentage of children. Cohen argues that it would be wrong to use reproductive technologies if it cause harm to children. There are proponents of this argument who put forth the “Interest in Existing Argument”, which argues that even though reproductive technologies cause harm to children, it is, however, still morally permissible because “it is better to be alive than not” (p.427). Cohen sees several problems with this argument as she discusses this all throughout her article.
Cohen’s argument states that the reproductive technology causes more harm and illnesses to children, and due to this reason, it proves that it is morally permissible not to employ them, in which she calls this the Harm to Children...
... middle of paper ...
...rse than no life at all because the state of nonexistence is neither good nor bad. This would seem to alleviate the wrongful life standard and to insist on a reevaluation that to not encourage the use of reproductive technologies if they were proven to increase the numbers of individuals born with serious defects.
Overall, Cohen’s argument of why reproductive technologies causes harm to children is not bad at all. She presents her case on why reproductive technologies are harmful and explain it well. The logic she presents on the proponents and opponent side of the argument leads to more questions and debate whether such technologies do cause impairments on children. Moreover, such debacle leads to more investigation regarding on the effects of the technology. However, she does believe that the only justification the technology brings is that it produces children.
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
Patrick Lee and Robert P. George’s, “The Wrong of Abortion” is a contentious composition that argues the choice of abortion is objectively unethical. Throughout their composition, Lee and George use credibility and reason to appeal the immorality of abortions. The use of these two methods of persuasion are effective and compels the reader to consider the ethical significance. Lee and George construct their argument by disputing different theories that would justify abortions. They challenge the ontological and evaluation theories of the fetus, as well as the unintentional killing theory. This article was obtained through Google, in the form of a PDF file that is associated with Iowa State University.
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.
Caplan, A., & Arp, R. (2014). The deliberately induced abortion of a human pregnancy is not justifiable. Contemporary debates in bioethics (pp. 122). Oxford, West Sussex: Wiley.
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.
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,
One of these ethical issues is regarding the use of fertility drugs. These drugs such as Pergonal, can trigger ovulation and increase the production of eggs which will increase a woman’s chances of conception. Often, these fertility drugs escalate the chances of multiple births that can lead to possible risk for both the mother and fetuses. Possible risk for carrying more than one fetus includes premature birth; long periods of hospital stays after birth as well as a higher risk one or more of these children will have some kind of serious disability or brain damage. In Greg Pence’s essay “The McCaughey Septuplets: God’s Will or Human Choice?” Pence says “the human uterus did not emerge in evolution to bear litters and that large multiple births are unnatural” (87). Doctors often recommend “selective reduction” (88) of all but a couple of the embryos to reduce the risk to the mother and fetus however many mothers refuse instead believing that the end results are “God’s will”. He makes a good point saying if it were “God’s will” then there would be “no need for fertility...
For many years, infertile couples have had difficulty facing the reality that they can not have children. According to Nidus Information Services Incorporated, 6.2 million women in the United States are infertile. This problem leads to many options. A few options have been used for a long period of time: the couple could adopt a child or keep trying to have a child themselves. For those couples that want to have their own children, there are new options arising. In vetro fertilization is an option that gives couples the chance to have a doctor combine the male's sperm and the woman's eggs in a petri dish and implant them into the woman's womb after the artificial conception. This may result in multiple pregnancies - more than five in some cases. This does not only occur in implantation, however. Many times the patient's doctor will ask her to consider selective reduction: aborting a few fetuses to save the ones she can. In a case of multiple pregnancy, selective reduction should be considered an option.
What do one think of when they hear the words “Designer Babies”? A couple designing their own baby of course, and it’s become just that. Technology has made it possible for there to be a way for doctors to modify a babies characteristics and its health. Genetically altering human embryos is morally wrong, and can cause a disservice to the parents and the child its effecting.
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)
Some doctors would say that the fetus is only a potential human being, John M. Swomley stated “because the fetus feels no pain, a function of the brain as yet undeveloped”, therefore no harm is being done towards the fetus. Many advocates would agree towards doctor Swomley’s statement compared to Christianity Today stating “ It is violence against children, a hideous act of poisoning or dismembering tiny bodies, then dumping them in a landfill or garbage disposal”. The biggest benefit of abortions are that the number of unwanted children are decreasing, with doctors philosophy of having good medical abortions that protect health and fertility, make abortions possible. This has been a tremendous achievement in individual health, helping women gain more dignity, therefore making our society more “responsible”. A woman’s choice allows them to become more empowered, it liberates them, and benefits their society even more.
As a young adult, it may seem foolish to predict what your future family life will look like, especially in regards to children. Often times this reality is forced upon a select few, particularly homosexual couples; however, with the innovation of in vitro fertilization (IVF), a couple is met with promise and the hope of a successful family life. IVF can be described as a process by which a fetus is genetically formed in a laboratory setting. Though this process may seem unnatural in essence, it allows for a more diverse family arrangement through medical innovation. This procedure, though controversial, is seen by many as an advancement in the medical field and can be accredited to procuring a healthy child for an unfortunate family, whether
When one contemplates the concept of eugenics, few think of modern contraception and abortion when in reality they are one in the same. The American Eugenics Society, founded in 1923, proudly proclaimed that men with incurable “conditions” should be sterilized. However these conditions were often none that could be helped, such as, one’s intelligence, race, and social class (Schweikart and Allen 529-532). The purpose of the society was to create the perfect class of men; elite in all ways. Likewise, Margaret Sanger’s feminist, contraceptive movement was not originally founded with this purpose. It was marketed as a way to control the population and be merciful to those yet to be born, again determined also by race and intelligence. The similarities in purpose actually brought the two organizations together to form a “liberating movement” to “aid women” known today as Planned Parenthood (Schweikart and Allen 529-532). The name may sound harmless, but the movement hid a darker purpose, to wean out the lower and less educated in order to create a perfect class.
The issue of abortion has and always will be a debated topic, as it centers around both the topic of morality and science. In “Science Is Giving the Pro-Life Movement a Boost” (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/pro-life-pro-science/549308/), Emma Green discusses how recent advances in science and technology are providing pro-life advocates with supplementary evidence in their fight against abortion. Additionally, Green discusses the pros and cons of utilizing such evidence. Finally, Green explains how doctors, in light of these progressive advances, are now debating whether or not the window for obtaining a legal abortion should be narrowed from 28 weeks to 22 weeks. While the majority of the time, I would support any advocacy group to employ more scientific material in obtaining their goals and support, I believe that pro-life supporters integrating more scientific evidence