The technology of today’s world is astounding. We have learned how to battle diseases that were once thought to lead to a certain death, we have invented incredible technologies that allow us to communicate with people across the world instantly, and maybe most impressively of all, we are able to create human life. We now hold in our hands the technologies that allow those who may not have been able to conceive naturally to have children they can call their own; children who will enrich their lives in a way nothing else can, and who will continue their names and lives after they are gone. In an age where we have more power than ever to use the bodies and DNA of others for our own benefit, it becomes increasingly important that we remain open-minded and fully understand both the disadvantages and advantages equally and create stricter regulations to control how we as a people progress our civilization.
Many people argue against the idea of sperm donation at all, suggesting that due to the number of children likely to be born from each donor’s sperm that it will increase the chance of unknown incest (Mroz). Although this could certainly be a reality as thing stand now, stricter regulation would stop this from becoming an issue. Just as there are laws that federally mandate that parents put their children in school, specifically for their betterment, we should also federally mandate that the use of a sperm donor must be noted on a child’s birth certificate. Just as with the existing regulations regarding schools, a child’s awareness that they were created using a sperm donor should be so overwhelmingly the right choice that it is law. Other beneficial programs could include mandatory counseling for potential sperm recipients to hel...
... middle of paper ...
...e are now able to have children. Human beings have a deep and basic need to procreate, and if we can help to fulfill this need I believe that we should, we should just make sure we do so with the possible child’s best interest and future in mind as well.
Works Cited
Christian Science Monitor. “In Britain, a decline in sperm donors; Anonymous no longer, most say they want to help infertile couples, not just earn extra cash." Christian Science Monitor 30 Dec. 2005: 07. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.
Ellin, Abby. “Making a Child, Minus the Couple.” The New York Times. Nytimes.com. 8 Feb. 2013. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.
"Fatherhood." Radiolab. WNYC. Narr. Jad Abumrad & Robert Krulwich. National Public Radio. 2 Dec. 2008. Radio.
Mroz, Jacqueline. "One Sperm Donor, 150 Offspring." The New York Times. nytimes.com. 5 September 2011. Web. 18 February 2013.
In Wade F. Horn’s article “Promoting Marriage as a Means of Promoting Fatherhood,” Horn discusses how having a child and being married is better for children because the father is more involved in the child’s life. Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas’s “Unmarried with Children,” on the other hand, takes the reader through Jen’s story about getting pregnant at a young age and deciding not to marry the father of her son. While both sources make appeals to emotion, reason, and character, Edin and Kefalas’s article makes more successful appeals and thus is the stronger argument.
23 The Mercury, Hobart, Tasmania, Sept. 1. 1997. Co author Stephen Steigrad, Department of Reproductive Medicine at Sydney's Royal Hospital for Women, found that 276 families through four fertility units did not plan to tell their children that they were the product of artificial insemination with sperm from donors.
Children grow up watching movies such as Star Wars as well as Gattaca that contain the idea of cloning which usually depicts that society is on the brink of war or something awful is in the midsts but, with todays technology the sci-fi nature of cloning is actually possible. The science of cloning obligates the scientific community to boil the subject down into the basic category of morality pertaining towards cloning both humans as well as animals. While therapeutic cloning does have its moral disagreements towards the use of using the stem cells of humans to medically benefit those with “incomplete” sets of DNA, the benefits of therapeutic cloning outweigh the disagreements indubitably due to the fact that it extends the quality of life for humans.
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.
The advancement and continued developments of third-party assisted reproductive medical practices has allowed many prospective parents, regardless of their marital status, age, or sexual orientation, to have a new opportunity for genetically or biologically connected children. With these developments come a number of rather complex ethical issues and ongoing discussions regarding assisted reproduction within our society today. These issues include the use of reproductive drugs, gestational services such as surrogacy as well as the rights of those seeking these drugs and services and the responsibilities of the professionals who offer and practice these services.
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.
Many studies have been done pertaining to egg donation and its medical aspect, but very few studies shows the ethical implications of egg donations. Health Laws such as Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act,1992 regulates the advertisement of success rate of fertility clinic. Only few states have federal laws for informed consent from egg donors (1-3). Informed consent means that donor understands all the minor details surrounding the egg donation procedure, its side-effects- medical, legal, ethical and emotional and gives permission to undergo the procedure without hesitation or coercion.
Imagine a parent walking into what looks like a conference room. A sheet of paper waits on a table with numerous questions many people wish they had control over. Options such as hair color, skin color, personality traits and other physical appearances are mapped out across the page. When the questions are filled out, a baby appears as he or she was described moments before. The baby is the picture of health, and looks perfect in every way. This scenario seems only to exist in a dream, however, the option to design a child has already become a reality in the near future. Parents may approach a similar scenario every day in the future as if choosing a child’s characteristics were a normal way of life. The use of genetic engineering should not give parents the choice to design their child because of the act of humans belittling and “playing” God, the ethics involved in interfering with human lives, and the dangers of manipulating human genes.
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.
...on of human embryos but they successfully argue that the benefits of therapeutic cloning outweigh the morally based objections regarding the process” (2011). Furthermore they emphasize the fact that human lives are spared and improved by the use of genetic engineering and that the destruction of human embryos can eventually be omitted out of the process in a near future through other forms of technology.
“Cloning represents a very clear, powerful, and immediate example in which we are in danger of turning procreation into manufacture.” (Kass) The concept of cloning continues to evoke debate, raising extensive ethical and moral controversy. As humans delve into the fields of science and technology, cloning, although once considered infeasible, could now become a reality. Although many see this advancement as the perfect solution to our modern dilemmas, from offering a potential cure for cancer, AIDS, and other irremediable diseases, its effects are easily forgotten. Cloning, especially when concerning humans, is not the direction we must pursue in enhancing our lives. It is impossible for us to predict its effects, it exhausts monetary funds, and it harshly abases humanity.
"Reproductive Technologies." Bioethics for Students: How Do We Know What’s Right?, edited by Steven G. Post, vol. 1, Macmillan Reference USA, 1999. Opposing Viewpoints in
Stevens, John, and Nazia Parveen. "I've Been Refused IVF Because My Fiance Is Already a Father, Reveals Heartbroken Woman." Mail Online. N.p., 1 Nov. 2013
Harney, Alexandra. “Without Babies, Can Japan Survive.” New York Times. New York Times, 15 Dec. 2012. Web. 6 Feb. 2014.