In the 1990’s, new technological questions have arisen over in-vitro fertilization and genetic engineering. These questions have become about as humankind has advanced in its scientific and technological knowledge. As we gain more control over nature, we will inevitably face tough questions about how to exercise this control.
One area of concern is reproductive technologies like in-vitro fertilization. Such technologies are meant to give an infertile couple the opportunity to have a child of their own. In-vitro fertilization seems to be a noble effort. It is giving a second chance for couples that are infertile. The intentions of such couples are pure, because they want to have a baby. Technology seems to be used for good purpose as it tries to help the infertile couple produce a child. So in-vitro fertilization is good.
But I have a few concerns. In the United States, there are thousands of kids being put up for adoption. Many of these children would like to have parents who would love them. Unfortunately, there seems to be more children in orphanages, then parents who are looking for children through adoption. Infertile couples should look toward adopting children first, rather than trying to spend so many of their psychological and financial resources for trying to produce a baby with their genes. Though an adopted child does not have the genes of the adoptive parents, the adopted child will become the adoptive parent’s own through love.
The Term Paper on In Vitro Fertilization Ivf Vito Reproduction
... of IVF Many individuals are looking to alternatives in child bearing, In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) being one of the most popular. IVF ... that further research may result in improved outcomes for more infertile couples (Edgar, 2002, MIVF and Reproduction Services, online). Until a ... It can be a psychologically stressful time for the parents to be especially if they are unsuccessful. This procedure ...
With more discoveries in genetics, the idea of genetic manipulation and cloning has arisen. Unfortunately, many questions have to be asked. With genetic engineering, there arises the hope of preventing and curing cancer and other genetic diseases. Such hopes are good and noble. But at what point does genetic manipulation become dangerous? There is concern that genetic manipulation could be used to create “superhumans” or children manipulated according to aesthetic and social criteria. Such a use is troubling to those who are different and imperfect. What if it’s undesirable for children to be short and of average strength? Such a line should not be crossed. Genetic manipulation should be used to cure disease, and not create superhumans.
In addition, cloning presents another problem. Nature never intended children to be genetically identical to their parents. Further, cloning might be inappropriate as it may be used by some to cheat death by having offspring that have the same genes that they do. Children should be a product of love. They should not be the result of any project to create kids that have the same genes of certain individual.
Reproductive technologies and cloning are recent innovations of science. They are products of scientific and technological knowledge. But with technology comes problems. For Paul Lauritzen, such technologies can be dehumanizing. He argues that doctors and scientists turn such an intimate process of reproduction into a series of processes that aim at getting a product, a child. For me, it seems disturbing that instead of having a child from one of the most intimate acts of human life, a child comes into existence from a sterile project to get a child. One of the most disturbing aspects of reproductive technologies is the commodification of children. Lauritzen argues that if money is paid for embryos and eggs, then babies are treated as products. As he argues, once they are seen as products, they are devalued as things to be bought and sold.
The Term Paper on Genetics Engineering Genetic Technology
Abstract This paper sets out to defend human genetic engineering with a new bioethical approach, post-humanism, combined with a radical democratic political framework. Arguments for the restriction of human genetic engineering, and specifically germ-line enhancement, are reviewed. Arguments are divided into those which are fundamental matters of faith, or "bio-Luddite" arguments, and those which ...
The government must strictly regulate such technologies. Their job must be to regulate the prices paid for eggs, and embryos. The reason for this regulation must be the prevention of the commodification of children. Humans are to be valued for who they are. They are not to be valued as property that has value for a buyer.
Further, Lauritzen argues that once embryos are treated as products, then there will be an expectation that the embryos will be the best products that they can be. So genetic engineering and screening might be used to eliminate “undesirable” traits or fetuses. But who decides which traits are undesirable? Who has the right to say that shortness and thinness are undesirable traits?
As McCormick warns, such technology can cause us to value our children in terms of traits rather than for the persons that they are. But, we value our friends and parents for the good persons that they are. We do not value them just because they’re tall or attractive, but because they are good, caring people.
