Savulescu defines his PPB as:
Couples (or single reproducers) should select the child, of all possible children they
In the essay “The Case Against Perfection” author Michael J. Sandel states that with the recent genetic breakthroughs our society is now faced with both a “promise and a predicament” (p.1.) This knowledge will know allow us to further treat and cure a wash of crippling diseases. Nevertheless, despite this miraculous breakthrough this discovery also open what seems to be a Pandora’s Box filled with concerns for moral prevalence, malpractice, and even perhaps the loss of free will to offspring. All of which leaves the users or perspective wielders of such power with a case of what Michael Sandel describes simply as a case of “moral vertigo” (p. 1.) Just like the original Pandora’s Box however, Sandel reveals…
Some examples of actual and alleged unethical conduct in practicing assisted reproductive technologies (ART) have given rise public debate about these rapidly progressing technologies. In certain instances it was believed that eggs stored for posterity by patients were used to impregnate others without any explanation, permission, or the informed consent of the parties. Although this was not the first time revelation of potential deception has ever come to light in the field of ART. There have been other cases where a doctor who operated a private clinic used his own sperm for artificial insemination without the patients consent. (Riddick, 2006) The following discusses assisted reproduction, surrogate parenting, what are the implications on the definition of parenting, is surrogate parenting good or bad, as well as if surrogate parenting a way to exploit the poor.…
“The Moral Challenge of Natality: Towards a Post-Traditional Concept of Family and Privacy in Repro-genetics” is an article from Gottingen University, written by C. Wiesemann. Wiesemann discusses how “repro-genetic is going to change the way we conceive children, and will have a substantial influence on the family” (61). He evaluates the two family models, the traditional model and the care model. They are part of an “ethical debate” of which model is better for a family. Instead of choosing between the two he suggests a third model, the kinship model as a “moral agent” for the debate (61). He thinks of the kinship model as being better suited for the family model. Wiesemann persuades his view by appealing to the audience’s emotions for the most part. Although he does well to prove his point, his arguments are ineffective due to hasty generalizations, ad populum, and ad misericordiam.…
Couples who are battling with infertility can benefit from human cloning. By having a cloned cell implanted into a mother’s uterus, she can possibly have a child that she could not have had through natural procreation. Human cloning can give infertile couples a biological child who received genes from one or both parents. Those who are advocates for reproductive cloning generally give three reasons: The goodness of human freedom, existence, and well-being. People believe that human cloning for reproduction purposes is not making themselves free, but that they are free to practice human cloning. They want to the ability to decide based on their own moral values what is right and wrong with having a cloned child. The goodness of existence has people advocating for the potential cloned child. People argue that once the cloned child is born it would “prefer existence as a clone to no existence at all (PCBE).” No one can verify that the child would believe that statement once they are old enough to think for themselves. The final argument for human cloning is for the goodness of well-being. This argument is for using human cloning to help infertile couples to have a biological child. Other people argue that the well-being is to benefit the genetic quality of the next generation by ensuring that all diseases and disorders that the child may inherit are removed…
Although not unanimously supported, the use of pre-embryonic diagnosis to screen for disease is generally accepted, this however leads to debate about how much freedom people should be allowed to make decisions about their future children. The issues arise as it is difficult to take an objective view on the topic, with many factors affecting peoples’ views. As there is in fact already a process of natural selection, perhaps it would be best to allow this to progress at its natural rate. On the other hand, if it is possible to allow people to decide elements of their child’s future, then who has the right to stop them from doing so? Can it be reasonable for a group of doctors and politicians to decide the fate of a generation? Especially where health matters are concerned.…
When these opportunities are presented to parents, most of them would embrace the idea of creating the best babies possible and they would expect from other parents the same. Although Agar denies there will be any moral obligation upon parents these situations might feasibly emerge. Furthermore this pressure may cause only one type of people to be produced because some features can be less often preferred by parents or society like homosexuality. If parents could choose their children’s sexual orientation do you think would they prefer their being homosexual? The common answer is negative; because of that I think new eugenics like the old one would create some obligations, and, moreover the absence of governmental sanction may cause it to get more serious. Agar uses this sentence to distinguish new and old eugenics “Citizens will end up being engineered in accordance with a dominant set of values after all and the new eugenics will collapse into the eugenics of old” (Agar 143). The two types of eugenics might be understood as the same so they are not so different as he…
Eugenics: A Flawed Reproductive Method Eugenics emerged in the late 19th century as a scientific ideology aiming to improve the genetic quality of the human population through selective breeding. Initially hailed as a beacon of progress, it garnered support for its purported ability to weed out undesirable traits and enhance desirable ones, thus improving societal well-being. However, beneath its veneer of promise lie inherent flaws that challenge its ethical foundations and practical implementation. Eugenics is fundamentally flawed because it is often employed for arbitrary reasons, primarily benefits privileged individuals, and inflicts substantial harm upon marginalized populations. Eugenics, despite its claims of improving human genetic stock, is scarred by the arbitrary…
References: Annas, G.J, "Regulatory models for human embryo cloning: The free market, professional guidelines, and government restrictions,"Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal (4)3:235-249, 1994. Brock, D., “Cloning Human Beings: An Assessment of the Ethical Issues Pro and Con,” paper prepared for NBAC, 1997. Brock, D.W. "The non-identity problem and genetic harm,"Bioethics 9:269-275, 1995. Cahill, L., Testimony presented to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, March 13, 1997. Chadwick, R.F., "Cloning," Philosophy 57: 201-209, 1982. Coleman, “Playing God or playing scientist: A constitutional analysis of laws banning embryological procedures,” 27 Pacific Law Journal 1331, 1996. Duff, N., “Theological Reflections on Human Cloning,” Testimony presented to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, March 13, 1997. Etzioni, A., The Moral Dimension (NY: The Free Press, 1990). Feinberg, J., "The child 's right to an open future," inWhose Child? Children 's Rights, Parental Authority, and State Power, W.Aiken and H. LaFollette (eds.) (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1980). Glendon, M.A., Rights Talk (New York: The Free Press, 1991). Gutmann, A., and D. Thompson Democracy and Disagreement (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, , 1996). Jonas, H., Philosophical Essays: From Ancient Creed to Technological Man (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974). Kass, L., “Why We Should Ban the Cloning of Human Beings,” Testimony presented to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, March 13, 1997. Kevles, D.J., In the Name of Eugenics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995). Meilaender, G., “Remarks on Human Cloning to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Testimony presented to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, March 13, 1997. -83-…
“The year 2100 will see eugenics universally established. In past ages, the law governing the survival of the fittest roughly weeded out the less desirable strains. Then man's new sense of pity began to interfere with the ruthless workings of nature. As a result, we continue to keep alive and to breed the unfit. The only method compatible with our notions of civilization and the race is to prevent the breeding of the unfit by sterilization and the deliberate guidance of the mating instinct, Several European countries and a number of states of the American Union sterilize the criminal and the insane. This is not sufficient. The trend of opinion among eugenists is that we must make marriage more difficult. Certainly no one who is not a desirable parent should be permitted to produce progeny. A century from now it will no more occur to a normal person to mate with a person eugenically unfit than to marry a habitual criminal.”…
The Eugenics movement started in the late 19th century and eventually became an ideal adopted in countries such as Germany and the United States. The motivation behind this motion was based upon the preservation of sanity within society. Hence, the Eugenics movement was centralized around sterilizing people who exhibited “mental illness, mental retardation or epilepsy.” Many scientists and scholars tried to justify the morality of this conceptualization by stating that “through selective breeding, society would improve.” This idea of Eugenics or “selective breeding” has raised many questions such as the following: Is it ethical for the state to determine who can and cannot breed? Furthermore, why do the “feeble-minded”…
As research continues to uncover new disease-causing mutations, the prospect of stopping the transmission of heritable diseases increases. With the use of modern technology, expecting parents can now be prescreened in order to determine their carrier status for certain diseases. Parents who choose to use in vitro fertilization are able to choose embryos that are free of disease due to preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Additionally, parents can be provided with information on their unborn child with the use of prenatal genetic testing. Some individuals view modern genetic technology as eugenic; however, this biggest difference between eugenics now and eugenics during the 1900s is consent. Today individuals pursue genetic testing by choice and policies on ethics and consent prevent reoccurrences of the immoral endeavors within the field of…
The main thesis of the Chapter is the ethical, moral, and political concerns regarding experimentation on human embryos. In the chapter, Philosopher Bonnie Steinbeck argues that embryos have a moral value, but do not possess a moral status. In her argument, moral value is when good reasons can be used to justify a being’s existence rather than objectifying it, and moral status is a being’s ability to have its own interests. For example, the ability for a being to feel pain. One would assume that a being would chose to not endure undue pain and seek to avoid it. Since embryos are not yet sentient, they cannot feel pain. In the late 1900’s Congress refused to authorize legislation for embryonic experimentation, even when the Ethics Advisory Board…
Here, when parents are planning on having a baby, they are faced with having to decide whether they want a genetically engineered baby or whether they want to let nature run its course. However, this decision involves much more than a simple yes or no, as this decision will decide their child’s social location and will assign them a master status. Deciding to genetically engineer their baby, parents are assuring their baby the master label of valid, but parents who decide to let nature run its course, are taking the huge risk of having a no-perfect child who will be labeled with the master status of ‘invalid,’ one which can’t be changed.…
Abortion can be defined as a means of terminating a pregnancy by removing or expelling a fetus from the uterus before viability. Abortion has been, and will always be, a controversial issue in today’s society and in the future. People have always struggled to determine whether it is ethical to abort a fetus; morally permissible (acceptable) or morally impermissible (unacceptable). The polarizing views that are associated with abortion makes this topic extremely controversial. Some believe that abortion is morally impermissible and under any circumstances will it ever be acceptable, while others believe that under certain circumstances it is justifiable. Many philosophers have attempted to tackle the topic of abortion by providing their parameters on what makes it acceptable or unacceptable. The philosophical views of Marquis, Kass, and Purdy will be analyzed in order to highlight the polarizing views of this controversial topic. In addition, an analysis of my stance will be given based on circumstances provided by the philosophical views and also from biological development principles of science in general and some views mentioned by Thomson, which would make abortion morally permissible.…
Anonymous sperm donation through a sperm bank is allowed in almost every state. Some states do have laws that allow children of anonymous sperm donors to learn the identity of their genetic father when they turn 18 or 21 years old. In this essay, I argue that it should be mandatory that contact information be given to every person who seeks an egg or sperm donation. When an anonymous donation is given, it is sometimes difficult for children to seek their biological parents, therefore this process is unethical for children who want to know who their biological parents are. Many children apart from children adopted, have rights to know their biological parents. Even though anonymous donation doesn’t entitle the person to leave contact, it is important for the child or parent of that child to have this information. There are many diseases that can come from heredity. Children should be able to trace these diseases and know what comes in their bloodline from their parents. Also some children can get sick, and will need a donor. The child may share the same blood type or could be a match with the anonymous donor, and how would they be able to reach out to this anonymous donor, so that their sickness can be treated or their lives can be saved.…