Reproductive Technologies- morally acceptable or not?

Camunay · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-25 Age: 19

Now more than 250, 000 babies have been born, according to emedicinehealth.com, since its first usage in the United States in 1981. The in Vitro Fertilization, or IVF, offers infertile couples a chance to have a child who is biologically related to them. What happens then? A man's sperm and the woman's egg are combined and fertilized in a laboratory dish then resulting embryo is transferred to the woman's uterus to implant and let it grow naturally. It usually takes 2-4 embryos placed in the woman's uterus at one time. A child in the name of Louise Brown was the first child to be conceived through in vitro fertilization and this made other forms of assisted reproductive technology to become an option for couples who struggle in having a baby.

Reproductive technology like the IVF for me is both acceptable and not, depending on different grounds. Well as for the case of couples who have been trying for more than a year to have their own family, I suggest that they resort to IVF. But in choosing to have their babies be artificially made, they must not be in control of more specific actions toward it. I do not agree with IVF if in anyway it will manipulate the more specific traits that the baby must have. They must accept whatever their future baby’s look will be based on the genes used in the process. As what happened in the article Dorothy Roberts: “Race and the New Reproduction”, most of Americans chose to have a baby with white skin and blue eyes. This resulted to a more prejudiced society for the black race. On the other hand, IVF is fine with me when it suggests having your own baby by using your own set of genes as is, without any other modifications and specifications that may be unfair to other people. I believe that religion must not be the hindrance in deciding whether a couple would undergo IVF of not. Why would the church prevent them from doing so if it means having a family? Preventing them would also mean eliminating the concept of a family. In my opinion, having a “test tube baby” would not make someone immoral or living against his faith. Maybe in the case of lesbians who wanted to have a baby through IVF would be of another case.

In the case of gestational carriers, a woman agrees to become pregnant and deliver a child for a contracted party. She gets pregnant through embryo transfer with a child of which she is not the biological mother. This is a more complex problem because a person outside a couple is involved. Taking aside the “what ifs” of this situation, gestational motherhood is acceptable for me especially when a person is risky to carry a child and deliver birth. But on the case of a woman who is fertile but is just unwilling to undergo pregnancy, I guess I will find it hard to accept. If her only reason is her “unwillingness” to perform pregnancy and no other medical reasons that would risk her health, she is just being demanding, and that is not fair.

From the different angles of the story, assisted reproductive technology (ART) life in vitro fertilization must be made available and legal for people especially those couples who are unable to create a family naturally. On the other hand, these procedures must be well-observed and regulated to prevent having difficulties regarding racial disparities among others.

Catindig, TJJFP · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-24

I would first like to point out that medical science has come a long way. From the speculation of Galen to the Vertruvian man, to stem cell research, we are approaching the day when we will be able to master our bodies. It is not a question of “if”, but it is a question of “when”. As indicated in the article, there are numerous types of reproductive technology available to the public nowadays. What is to be focused on is artificial insemination and in-vitro fertilization. Both are used to give a second chance to women who are infertile, that they and their husbands or partners (in case they aren’t married) may be able to experience the joys of having a child of their own to rear. The wonders of modern technology have given humans (and livestock) the chance to go beyond the biological limitations that may befall us.

These practices are acceptable to me up to a certain extent. As earlier mentioned, these procedures give infertile women a chance at having a baby. What does this entail? That we have surpassed the limitations imposed by our own biology through medical science? That power of creation has, as usual, been subject to commercialization and thus is available to the greater public. Everyone has a chance at using such techniques granted by science, provided they have the finances to back them up. What these procedures do entail is that we can save whole bloodlines and even possibly a whole race through in-vitro fertilization. Now, infertile women do not have to despair for life and curse the high heavens for their bad luck at not being able to have a baby, sometimes even resulting in suicide. This affords both married and unmarried couples a chance to rear a child of their own (said child may not have been gestated in the woman, but hell, that’s the point of surrogacy) no matter how old they are (up to around the age of mid 60s, anyway).

Now, what else does this entail? This power of IVF needs three things to work, a sperm, an egg, and a uterus. Someone, either the partner’s male companion/husband or some guy may donate the first requirement. The infertile woman usually donates the egg. And finally, any healthy female capable of gestation can be used to fulfill the third criterion. The first danger here is the impersonality of the procedure when it involves surrogacy. Bearing a child for nine months is no easy task. Heck, when the bearer sleeps (see, I don’t refer to her as the mother, but rather her function, that’s another disturbing thought), eats, walks, is alone, she is with the baby. There is an emotional attachment formed during this process that is hard to break. When I think about it, it’s like waiting for a birthday present to be “made” just for you. The real mother doesn’t have to deal with all the pains that come from childbirth. With IVF, the fact that you can try and try again to get pregnant is also disturbing. The other problem is the emotional as well as financial burden the mother has to go through. Although stress levels do not, reportedly, endanger the baby, they do harm the mother, psychologically at least.

That some eggs may become unviable should not be cause for them to be used in other scientific pursuits or research. To give others a chance at bearing a life is one thing, to play with a life (which is another moral issue altogether) is another. I agree with assisting life to be created, even through artificial means. But using the by products of that process, even if they are unviable, should not be done. We already tread the thin line between these reproductive procedures ebing a boon to our race and being a bane on our conscience. That is one limit I propose for IVF patients. It is permissible for me to include unmarried and even homosexual couples because as long as they can prove they are capable of rearing the child then why not give them the chance? (The mechanism for finding out is another thing to think about).

In the end, we will be playing God to some extent. Until that time, we must temper our lust for control and power over nature with responsibility and the patience to further examine the ramifications of our actions and their effects on our present, as well as on future generations.

De Vera, Rosemarie · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-25 Age: 20

The different reproductive technologies are overall good because it enables couples or individuals to have children even if they have reproductive difficulties like infertility or really want to have a child but does not have a partner. These technologies are a major leap to human life, scientifically speaking, and another break through and really show how brilliant the minds of people are. Since the main reason why scientists have come to developed such technologies is the fact that many couples or individuals do not have the capacity to give birth. These provide the answer to their problems and generally beneficial to them. Definitely, these support procreative liberty by enabling couples or individuals who have such difficulties in conceiving or other concerns to have the children who they really desire.

One example of reproductive technology is in vitro fertilization (IVF). This is a process of fertilizing egg cells by sperm cells outside the mother’s womb. It is done in breakers, test tube, or petri dishes. Once the egg cells are fertilized, these are then injected to the womb to continue the growth inside it. This technology is acceptable since its main purpose is to form a baby, and there is nothing wrong with it. Difficulty in conceiving will not be a problem anymore through IVF. It is somehow one of the basic among the reproductive technologies or practices because unlike egg and sperm donation, the genes of the biological parents are the ones used in this technology. There will be no confusion of the concept of “parent” because in the other technologies, there could be different biological, gestational and rearing parents.

Reproductive technologies or practices in general are acceptable because of procreative liberty. The wrong thing is to stop people from resorting to these technologies in answering their problems. It is much incorrect to say that “unnatural” is wrong. That, if you do not have the capacity to give birth, then you do not have the right to give birth, because it will be “unnatural”. That, therefore you must not give birth. Preventing someone to have children by applying a reproductive technology is the wrong thing. It is their freedom to have children if they desire. No one should remove this freedom, and much more their right to have children.

Another criticism of these technologies is that we are playing like God. It means that we can manipulate the resulting features of a child –if we want the child to be blonde, blue-eyed, white-skinned, etc. Yes, it is like that. I am a Catholic Christian and I believe that God is the most powerful. Yet, I am not against such practices for reproduction. If I solely adhere on the belief that men should not interfere in any “natural” works, then, what is the use of such brilliant minds? We have different faiths, but we are still humans and are capable of being rational. Actions should not just because “God says it”, but it should be if it is for the good of every individual. If a reproductive technology is harmful to individuals applying it, then definitely it should be stopped. For me, the main argument for not accepting these technologies is if it brings harm. However, that is not the case. Science continually improves these technologies to make sure that these are safe.

Change is the only thing constant in this world. With the continuous enhancement of science, it is expected that there will be more technologies that will again be questionable. Both cannot be stopped. But conflicts must surely be arranged. It can be thru an end of the other or compromise of one. In this case, the most important thing is that the “parent” of the child should be responsible to make the child grow with the proper love and affection and that his/her existence in this world is the best thing.

QUILICOT · Posts: 5 Join date: 2008-11-24

Humanity is truly an evolving race. With the technologies we have discovered, from fire, to big city industrialization, to cloning farm animals, we cannot discard the fact that someday, scientists will be able to find a way to make babies, sans copulation or the ability of an individual to actually conceive a baby. Apparently, that someday is now.

With the discovery of technologies like in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, etc., infertile couples who would have suffered a life of childlessness can now rejoice in the fact that they can not be stuck in that barren fate anymore. Gay couples or individuals, who don’t have the ability to make babies with their own genes are now empowered with the existence of such innovations. With the dawn of this new era, individuals’ options for procreation is broadened, consequently, enhancing, human freedom.

One particular reproductive method that caught my attention is in vitro fertilization (IVF). It is a process wherein a sperm and an egg is fertilized in a fluid medium, after which, would be injected back to the woman, or a surrogate, in hopes of achieving a successful pregnancy. It is acceptable because it is beneficial, more than it harms anyone. Imagine, with this technology, many infertile couples would be happy as it is now possible to rear a child from their own genes! It is now possible to preserve a family lineage from ending! It is now possible to make babies until x years old! And there are still so much more possibilities.

With the criticism that these technologies allow us to play God, well, I don’t think that this is playing. These technologies give happiness to many individuals who truly want it. Withdrawing this technology to the public is actually more harmful than helpful, as a matter of fact. It has been seen that since many people could not bear children, they have been unhappy and miserable their whole lives. Now, with the availability of such innovations, can we actually not grant so many people the happiness they deserve? God GAVE us the ability to reproduce. Finding other means of such ends shouldn’t be as bad although there are some couples who are really pushing it, like white people who want the perfect little white kids, I think that it is still acceptable.

With the criticism of unnaturality, I would argue that if we adhered to everything that was purely natural, then right now, we’d be naked, living in forests, eating fruits and be stuck with primitive practices because THAT is natural. But we don’t live like that, do we?

There are still, of course, the economic and social dilemmas. First off is with the option of choosing your child to become the most optimal person he can become. Though everyone has the right to choose, even if it is the traits of their baby girls and boys, I think that it condones discrimination. The wrongness to it is that it CATERS to such discrimination, making it seem that if their babies looked like a mixed breed, it is already a matter of repulsion!

Also, there is an alienation of the poor, the “colored” and the single women. For the poor, since they cannot afford such lofty technology, they are helpless to do anything and resign in the fate that they can never bear any children. With the colored, apparently, few black people have availed of this technology because, more often than not, many clinics deceive them, steering them away from reproductive clinics, purposely giving them wrong diagnoses and not delivering any services to them at all. With the single wannabe moms, they are also hindered from making their babies, for the main fact they are single despite them being very capable parents.

Another problem I see is the deteriorating business of the adoption business. Since many children are still being left in adoption centers, many of these children will not be adopted anymore, which means, many of them will not be able to taste and see how a real family feels like.

With the accelerating development of technology, it will be only a matter of time when scientists discover cloning! Would you imagine. But I digress. New reproductive technologies are perfectly fine as it gives more benefit than harm. Although it caters to discrimination of the marginalized, I think that it is society’s ideologies that need a change.