Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Teleology ethics
Whether one can or cannot choose the sex of a future child is no longer a hypothetical issue within society. Today society has new genetic engineering technologies that allow parents to select the sex of their baby in advance. However, a controversial debate surrounds the topic due to the ethical concern on the matter. Sex selection experiments have been seen throughout history for centuries (Laio 1). The methods in determining sex may not all share the same characteristics and procedures, but the ultimate desired outcome has always been the same. For example, Ancient Greeks would tie the left testicle off in hopes the sex of a child would be male because they believed the right testicle produced the male sex (Laio 1). Jewish tradition believed …show more content…
For example, some people end up having more kids then they anticipated because they kept trying for a baby of the opposite sex (Fletcher 1). By participating in prenatal sex selection families can control the size of their family outcomes. In addition, families that already have one or multiple children of the same sex can have a child of that opposite gender (Fletcher 1). According to Kalfoglou prenatal sex selection is advantageous for both men and women by allowing their goal of a gender balanced family with producing as few children as possible (3). Increasing family size to produce certain desired offspring increases both economic and human burdens in caring for a family, prenatal sex selection can prevent …show more content…
There is no evidence at the moment that sperm sorting or PGD causes any harm to a future child. If no harm is brought forth to the child there are no moral disadvantages to pre selecting a child’s sex. By doing non-harmful procedures such as sperm sorting and PGD, actual known harmful procedures such as selective abortion and infanticide can be avoided. The teleological theory of ethics, more exact utilitarianism, states that the end or purpose of an action determines its rightness or wrongness (Levine xxii). It also states that an act is considered morally correct if it brings more good consequences than bad ones. Based on this ethical theory prenatal sex selection can be considered ethical due to preventing other more questionable sex selective methods such as abortion and infanticide. With or without prenatal sex selection abortion and infanticide cannot be completely prevented, but by using a non-harmful methods such as sperm sorting or PGD situations such as these can be reduced and result in more good consequences then bad
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
To choose for their children, the world’s wealthy class will soon have options such as tall, pretty, athletic, intelligent, blue eyes, and blonde hair. Occasionally referred to as similar to “the eugenics of Hitler’s Third Reich” (“Designer Babies” n.p.), the new genetics technology is causing differences in people’s opinions, despite altering DNA before implantation is “just around the corner.” (Thadani n.p.). A recent advance in genetically altering embryos coined “designer babies” produces controversy about the morality of this process.
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.
A gynaecologist can easily perform an ultrasound and tell parents what gender to expect their child to be. Reasonably, parents have the choice to learn the gender or to keep it a surprise. However, For parents to know they are expecting a daughter by chance or for them to choose that they want a daughter are two different cases. There are a variety of methods that allow parents to choose the gender of their child. In some cases, there may be fear of passing down a sex-linked genetic disease and so a certain gender may be preferred to protect the child’s health. However, a contentious issue is whether or not gender selection for non-medical reasons is ethically defensible. There are three positions that one could take: gender selection can never, sometimes, or always be ethically defended. In this paper, I intend to argue that gender selection is always permissible.
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
Amniocentesis and ultrasound techniques are the most common ways for couples to determine the sex of the child before it is born. In the US, such tests are routine and not usually alarming, but in nations such as India and China those tests, and others, have become an issue of debate since the results could mean life or death. Until the 1980’s, people in poor countries could do little about their preference for sons before birth, ...
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.
Genetic Engineering is harmful because it has produced Gendercide in countries such as China and India. Genetic engineering allows sex selection to become easier. The imbalance between genders continues to rise. Clayton Farris states, “In China the imbalance between sexes was 108 boys to 100 girls in the late 1980s, for the generation of of the early 2000s it was 124 to 100. In some chinese provinces is an unprecedented 130 to 100”(Farris 63).The imbalance between sexes is “unprecedented”. Parents constantly use genetics to get the gender they value. Many parents choose boys in China which leads to the outrageous number of “130 to 100”. Chinese parents value men more than women in their culture. Sex selection gives them the opportunity to get what they want. Their desire sex leads them into Gendercide. Genetic
In order for a species to survive, its population has to evolve. Evolution is the process of gradual change driven by natural selection to improve survival. Evolution is the explanation of how life got to its current state. Before the idea of evolution, the Bible gave the explanation of how things came to be, the Theory of Creation. Charles Darwin is credited for developing the theory of evolution. Scientist such as Georges Cuiver, James Hutton and Charles Lyell, and Jean-Baptiste Lamarck heavily influenced Darwin. It is because of Darwin’s voyage aboard the Beagle that we now have a scientific explanation of how species came to be. Canines have evolved and have been domesticated by artificial selection into our household pets. Unlike natural
In today’s world, people are learning a great deal in the rapidly growing and developing fields of science and technology. Almost each day, an individual can see or hear about new discoveries and advances in these fields of study. One science that is rapidly progressing is genetic testing; a valuable science that promotes prevention efforts for genetically susceptible people and provides new strategies for disease management. Unnaturally, and morally wrong, genetic testing is a controversial science that manipulates human ethics. Although genetic testing has enormous advantages, the uncertainties of genetic testing will depreciate our quality of life, and thereby result in psychological burden, discrimination, and abortion.
In such positions, the resolution to terminate a pregnancy may be argued as the most ethical choice. The mother is also considered to have a reasonable level of ethical responsibility to the fetus, because she did not take enough precautions to ensure avoid conception (Cline, 2014). The mother’s ethical responsibility to the fetus may not be enough to deprive her of choice of abortion; it may be enough to ascertain when an abortion can be ethically selected (Cline, 2014). When a woman does not wish to carry an abortion to term, it will be unethical for law or any other person to force them to do so.... ...
Pray, Leslie A., Ph.D. “Embryo Screening and the Ethics of Human Genetic Engineering.” Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 2008. Web. The Web.
Determining whether to divulge the gender of a child should be a personal choice. Society should not dictate whether one chooses to disclose the sex of their child. At conception, the gender is determined by chromosome characteristics and it will be the male (male semen) that dictates whether the baby will be a boy or girl. Nowhere in any literature that has been read or published that it states that “society” is the determining factor whether a girl or boy will be conceived. Society suggests that knowing the gender is routine, but what may be considered routine for some is not necessarily customary for all. If one chooses to stray away from what is considered to be “normal” it poses or present an issue. Individuals are instantaneously met with opposition or back lash due to nondisclosure of the sex of their child whether it is unborn or born. A typical argument would be as to what color clothing to bring for the unborn or born child, should one bring pink or blu...
There are different ways and reasons why people wish to change the genes in their cells; the two categories split into “somatic and germline genetic engineering”. When a scientist uses “somatic genetic engineering” -the sex cells-- eggs and sperms are not affected; a specific gene code is changed and the genes do not pass down to the next generation. The other genetic engineering used is “germline” which, in contrast to somatic engineering, affects the eggs and sperms. When germline genetic engineering is used, the genes will be passed down to the next generation, affecting the physical and genetic traits. The debate rises and people question people’s free will. Bioethics is the formal and recognized term that describes the advantages and disadvantages that genetic enginee...