The claim that new reproductive technologies are unnatural comes from language reinforcement because doctors describe reproduction as natural and artificial but people take it literally and so artificial becomes unnatural. New Reproductive technologies can cot possibly be unnatural because they were borne out of the natural process of human’s knowledge evolving and expanding itself thus what seems to be impossible then are available now and because it is new, it is legitimate to have questions or concerns about it but to discard it all together is wrong.

I’d like to center mainly on Dorothy E. Roberts’ Race and Reproduction, as a black woman her concerns are real over the effects of in vitro fertilization (IVF) on race. She noticed that more white women undergo the procedure than black women while the latter is twice likely to need it more, she reasoned that this is because of the subtle biases in nature of how IVF clinics operates costing twice as much as an average black woman’s salary therefore ensuring that only white women gets it. There is also the lingering fear of that IVF like other new reproductive technology, and even abortion actually, promotes unwanted racial superiority because they seem to favor propagation or strengthening of bias towards white babies with blond hair and blue eyes. Roberts’ adds that most recipients would want a white baby and that cases where there are black babies are usually met with horror, either because there was a mistake during the insemination that the recipient did not know about or some other external factor, in which case a white baby would have been much more desired.

First, let us first establish the fact that blacks are a minority in the United States, roughly 30% of the population that is, so it is not a new phenomenon that you might not see as much of them in any clinic at all. What is a cause for concern is even if they do need it, such procedures will not be available to them because a whole society was built with them as second class citizens in mind. Sure slavery got abolished, what two centuries ago?, but in the language of history that was just yesterday and the vestiges of it are still clinging to this day, so the culprit really are the modern day masters who still make them slaves, either by denying them equal pay to meet their daily needs or assistance when they are faced without any help such that new technologies that could have helped them be not available like IVF. And because it is the master’s world, it is inevitable that the dominant choice would be blond hair and blue eyes; off course it would be reinforced! as long as black people keep themselves in a system that makes them second class citizens when they have as much right to be American, in passive submission because after all they have a black president now, etc. then I doubt there will be an end to any of it. Technology or science for that matter is not bad, it is how we use them that defines it.

They say IVF and various others make life a role playing game where humans get the chance to play God? I say no, it is but an arena where we can appreciate God more or some other super being if you’re not religious at all, understanding the mysteries of the miracle we call life and reveling in the joy of it all and accepting that there is more we need to know. God, if there is even such would have not let us live with such capabilities and evolve to where we are now if all he wanted was for us to take things as they are, it is natural that He would have left something in this world for us to question so we could understand. He allowed us to learn these things.
[/size][/size]

As the human mind progresses, countless possibilities are being discovered and the technological innovation affecting our lives are becoming inevitably fast. Procreation sounds impossible during the time of 50’s, but now it is becoming more and more prominent and is already to set off worldwide. Procreation has long been a topic for debate, as its process raised so many ethical issues. One more thing is the issue of discrimination dominantly occurring between the whites and the blacks. As the lives of people in new world puts into fast track, traditional methods are continuously being altered – and becoming more expensive. It is not just an issue of race and choices, rather accessibility and power also plays a major role.

Embryo donation is one of the most intriguing topics argued, since it requires consent and necessarily undergo several experiments leading to wastage and discarding of embryos, or as others put it; possible humans. Embryos became the object of experiment, the consequence to success. It is a trial and error method of study, where these objects of experiment are willingly taken from their donors, with high hopes of positive result. By doing such experiments, it does not necessarily mean that we are trying to surpass and outwit what God has imposed to be Divine Creation, rather we are merely taking the best of our minds and let us take our knowledge far beyond all possibilities that we may achieve. These innovations aim to make our lives easy and not to demoralize or astray us from goodness, we just have to bear in mind our limitations and the consequences of the things we do. Besides these present procreation methods are merely responses to infertile couple needs, just like food for the hungry.

Only this will be questionable when it undermines the rights of other people, respect remains to be of great importance. It is questionable when it becomes a tool to annihilate society, and disregard people’s right to choose their own way of life, when it overlaps the values of others and touches the boundaries of humanity’s freewill. Each and every one of us has the right to decide for ourselves, we just have to keep in mind the responsibility of being a human in making these choices. We can never achieve a harmonious society; there will always be a part that is dominant, the least we can do is lessen the gap between them two.

I have read on discussions about the ‘New Reproduction’ prior to this essay. However, Professor Roberts’s paper was the first one that I have read which considered the angle of racism in the already morally problematic subject.
That being said I have already established my position that such practice, for me, is immoral. ‘Playing God’ would most definitely be a factor for me thinking that it is immoral. Another would be the degree of control that the ‘parents’ have over the ‘potential person’. And last would be the possible dilemmas that the potential person might face in his/her being an ‘actual’ person.
Having been stated in the main question that ‘playing God’ is one of the usual arguments brought up whenever discussions about New Reproduction take place, I will no longer discuss too much on this. I would just like to say that in the world where we exist in today, the scientific achievements and those currently being pursued are really aimed on being able to play God. Focusing more on medical breakthroughs, specifically in healthcare, we have New Reproduction, Human cloning, stem cell creation, and many others. All of these aims to prolong, perfect, or even create life. New Reproduction is more on creating and perfecting life – though others might like to think of it as prolonging also. So indeed playing God is an issue that might be already established and previously discussed, but I would still add it to one of my main reasons on why I think it is immoral.
Next would be on the degree of control that the ‘parents’ have on the potential person. The ability to dictate every trait – hair color, eye color, and even certain brain functions, (which actually seem more like details) – of the potential person is just disturbing for me. I have mentioned ‘perfecting life’ and this is actually my main argument for that particular concept. Genetically creating an embryo is one thing. But genetically engineering an embryo is another. If all a sterile couple really wishes is to have a child who is genetically related to them, why is then there a need to specify such traits? And some would even go to the point creating an ‘ideal’ or a ‘perfect’ child. This is where it starts to get a little bit problematic for me as I see no need for that.
Last would be the transition from being a potential person to an actual person, and what possible dilemmas the child might face from there. Before anything else I would just like to clarify that I am not homophobic or even patriarchic. My claims might contradict these clarifications but these are just personal opinions influenced by my personal set of values just like everybody else’s answers. Parenting the child is an issue for me in terms of who will parent the child. It was mentioned in the article that some IVF clinics only accept heterosexual married couples and find the cases of single women to be problematic. I share these people’s particular point of view. I have nothing against single parents. In terms of the quality of parenting, nobody can assert such a claim that having married heterosexual parents could provide the best results. However, the option of having a ‘traditional’ family could now be reduced to being a second option – to some – with this particular technological advance. Extreme feminists could even assert such a claim that there would be no more need for males in the world as they could pro-create by themselves through the presence of such technologies – I personally know people with this line of thinking. Another possible dilemma is a child growing up having homosexuals for parents. The quality of parenting is also out of the picture here. Rather I see some other problems that one might refer to be ‘minor’ or ‘shallow’, but for me however are not. Imagine yourself to be in kindergarten or grade school. And you are asked to draw your family during your art class. There you will draw a picture of you and your parents. Then when the teacher asks you to pass your work, you will see that your classmates’ works show a male and a female parent while yours could show either both male or both female parents. There would be that inevitable sense of confusion within the kindergarten you. Or even consider a normal conversation when you are asked for your father’s name and you say ‘Ramon’. Then the same person will ask for your mother’s name and you say ‘Bruno’. If I was the person asking you I would be a little shocked and confused as well. It is okay to be a homosexual as long as you do not cause harm to anyone. But think of someone perfectly innocent as a child, who perceives the world to be as what his/her parents tell him/her it is, could be indirectly harmed as he/she will not understand such complexities at such a young age.
It was said that we should not be dogmatic in looking at issues such as this one. But it was also said that the reasoning of a person is exclusive to his/her own set of values. So as my final stand, I believe that as long as the limits and the potential dilemmas remain unsolved, New Reproduction will still remain immoral for me.

Reproductive Technology entails a range of techniques used to overcome infertility, influence or choose the genetic characteristics of offspring, or modify the characteristics of a population. These procreative techniques also entail a range of ethical issues rousing controversies involving the limitations and boundaries of governmental control, private (personal) choice, religious belief, and parental wishes and desires. Some examples of assisted reproduction are In Vitro Fertilization, artificial insemination, surrogacy, and ways such as, concentrating a sperm sample from a husband, whose sperm count was low, bringing an ovum within the mother’s reproductive tract, and administering medication to enhance ovulation.

I am not against reproductive technology because this development has enabled many couples to have children despite their deficiencies. Assisted reproduction has also served as an answer to the prayers and wishes of those parents to have their own family. The decision of individuals to engage or avail one of these reproductive techniques is part of the freedom and free will they have as human beings. But there are also boundaries to this freedom as well as responsibilities on the part of the individuals to be able to take the consequences of their action that will surely affect their personal lives, their relationships with other people which in turn affect the society they belong with. In In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), children are produced through a technical process, subjected to what they called “quality control”, and eliminated if found “defective”. Individuals who wish to engage in such a technique should equip themselves with the appropriate information and make themselves ready to accept the consequence of subjecting their soon to be daughter/son to the arbitrary choices of these experts.

In the view of the Church, a child is generally seen as a kind of gift of nature, conceived out of love and passion of two people. It would argue that in reproductive technology, a child may seen increasingly as a commodity whose main objective is to satisfy the emotional needs of the parents. But the joy that a newborn child brings to a couple or even an individual is irreplaceable. The concept of family that the baby shapes is very much essential to a human being. True enough, God has the control of everything in this world. He is our creator but we can discern reproductive technology as His own gift and blessing for mankind. There are moral options presented by the Church that can be taken into consideration, the LTOT (Lower Tubal Ovum Transfer), GIFT (Gamete Intra-Fallopian Transfer), use of fertility drugs, and the use of natural methods in which natural reproductive rhythms are tracked to enhance chances for achieving pregnancy.

I believe that for as long as these methods of reproductive technology and the developments from them are kept under control, they can be of great benefit to mankind.[/font]

ISTURIS, R.D.S. 2005-53691 Philo 171
3rd Written Assignment: Reproductive Technologies

In the overview of the article New Reproductive Technologies, Robertson argued that “individuals should be free to use these techniques or not as they choose”, without government intervention, unless there is potential for significant harm to others. So it is a technology available to all as long as no harm can be caused to others.

The primary “other” that can be caused harm to is the potential infant represented by the sperm and egg cell or zygote that will be used for the procedure. Robertson’s argument implies that as long as the infant will be in good conditions (well-being) after it is born then the use of reproductive technology is acceptable.

The author also mentioned that society should not restrict individuals’ access to reproductive technologies provided that these adults are capable of making rational, well informed, and free choices. But is the mere presence of these capabilities in the individuals seeking reproductive technologies enough? If a “husband and wife” possessing all these capabilities was to use this in vitro fertilization in order to produce an infant which will then be claimed as their by a couple who sought the paid services of the “husband and wife” to produce the infant, the “wife” as surrogate mother, is the mere presence of those capabilities mentioned above enough to justify the use of the technology? If the production of infants became the “husband and wife’s” family enterprise because it generates substantial income, is that still moral? It does not cause anyone any harm after all. It gives the “husband and wife” income and gives the fulfillment of a want to the couples who paid for their services. So it’s ok to gather women at their prime to act as surrogate mothers for the pregnancy and births of the “ordered” infants by some couples who are willing to pay for it. The infant became a commodity in this hypothetical situation.

Another issue in reproductive technology which was often cited was the issue of its likelihood to abortion. The fittest sperm, egg cell, zygote is chosen to undergo the whole pregnancy and birth process. But what happens to those zygotes that are unfit? They are disposed. Some people view this as the same with abortion or discriminatory infanticide. The same, in the sense that a potential being is being denied of its actuality. But this also has its flaws. Is the status of potentiality enough to justify the zygote being saved from disposal? What if the zygote’s DNA shows it to be predisposed or will be born with a debilitating condition (e.g. down syndrome, cerebral palsy) and will have a life of disability, is it also enough to justify its disposal?

These technologies are morally acceptable if used for example, to have fulfillment for a family or to fix a problem of the zygote or embryo (e.g. heart disorder). But, as in the case of “designer babies” wherein the zygote’s DNA is manipulated to produce a “made to order” infant, the motivation behind this (usually vanity), the use of reproductive technologies seem to be morally unjustified. in the sense that we are playing good and choosing which genes are to be used. disrupting the natural workings of reproduction. but then again, in "natural" circumstances, don't we also choose our mates? if you want a "designer baby" find someone with which your genes can work with to produce the resulting infant you want. but if you want a baby which is a product of the union of you and your partner, would it matter if the infant has its imperfections, imperfections that are non quality life threatening?

Reproductive technologies are acceptable. It is in their usage and the reason behind it which bring the problems and issues.

L.N. Santiago

Procreative liberty is the “freedom” either to have children or to avoid having them. If a person or couple is not allowed to use new reproductive technologies to promote their “freedom”, they may be considered as deprived. Furthermore, to be entitled with procreative liberty, the individual or couple must have the capacity to financially afford the procedure, rear the resulting child, and accept the consequences of failed or successful attempts. But what if a poor and infertile couple yearns for a child? Since they are poor, they cannot exercise their freedom to procreate because they lack the capacity to pay for the procedure. Therefore, they too are being deprived of a “freedom”. This deprivation, based on economic capabilities, makes procreative liberty morally unacceptable and unfair. The concept of “freedom” procreative liberty presents puts the poor people in an even more disadvantaged position and promotes class struggle; whereby only the wealthy and powerful people benefit from the technological innovations of the society. If this is the case, does this mean that only the rich and powerful people have the potential to reproduce “social assets”? I don’t think so. Consider the likes of Ramon Magsaysay and Manny Villar who rose from the ranks and became significant leaders of our country. In addition, it promotes inequity since the opportunity to have a “good baby” will only come from the ranks of the wealthy and powerful; thus, increasing their population and the possibilities of oppression.

The use of technologies to have children may or may not be morally acceptable, depending on the procedure used. When it involves assisting the sperm get to the egg (in collaborative reproduction or choosing of healthy sperm) through artificial means, it may be acceptable because it is simply giving the sperm a ride. But if it involves manipulating the zygote to harmonize with the whims or needs of perfection of the parent, then it is morally unacceptable and is a blatant act of trying to be God. God created people in His image and likeness, but never into perfect beings—where others are born with fatal diseases, degenerative disorders, genetic abnormalities, or are cross-eyed. Then, who are we now trying to create “something better”. It is like challenging God himself—created questioning his/her own creator. Yes, it is absolutely true that God created humans with a mind that could fathom great knowledge and conceptualize technologies such as these. But along with that, human beings are also given the free will to choose to do (or not) what the mind dictates.

Once the child is born, an issue in collaborative reproduction on the concept of a family arises. It involves possible confusion on the part of the child as to what a family constitutes. Having the traditional concept of a family, explaining the “new setup” to the child will prove to be problematic. But since the child is already a product of a non-traditional practice, then it would also be alright to use a more encompassing definition. However, people around him/her might not be as open-minded as his/her family. For this reason, it is unfair on the part of the child to be born in a society where he/she will be readily met with discrimination and injustice.

Given that the doctors’ sole purpose of “designing” babies, at present, is to remove the disordered genes so as to prevent mothers from giving birth to babies with defects and to help the family, unimaginable things can happen in the future once the technology is fully mastered. People can use the technology for their selfish desires and, thereby, act like gods if it is not guarded well. Once fully mastered, the possibility for this event to occur is, without a doubt, inevitable, especially if the trend of technology nowadays is considered. If the good guys think they can protect their technology, the bad guys will, also, not doubt their ability to steal it. At this point, it will not only be a war of steel or germs, but also a war of the psyches—or of determination. Before the degree of defenses and offenses go up a notch higher, we must now consider the prevention of possible bloodshed—prohibit the genetic engineering of embryos. Furthermore, knowing how to alter an embryo could eventually lead to the creation of super humans. The idea may seem quite far-fetched, but then again, just less than five decades ago, cars run by water also seemed unlikely. By being part of this medical innovation is tantamount to allowing oneself to be practiced on or used as guinea pig; thus, indirectly supporting morally unacceptable goals.

To be morally acceptable, freedom to procreate must narrow down its parameters. Evaluation of the technologies used as to whether they are truly a means of assisting or manipulating reproduction is necessary to determine its acceptability. Furthermore, careful assessment of the parent/s’ intentions and capacity to rear and/or bear a child regardless of social discriminations must be done to prevent wholesale of eggs/sperms or a production of an army of clones.

What do you think of the different reproductive technologies that have now become available for couples or individuals?

I think that it is nice to know that there are medical breakthroughs that could help couples or individuals fulfilling their desires to become fulltime parent or at least replicate their genes for the sake of continuing their blood line.

Choose/cite one particular reproductive procedure/practice and discuss whether it is acceptable or not.

Among many reproductive procedure/practice I have chosen the surrogate mother procedure.

“Surrogacy is a method of reproduction whereby a woman agrees to become pregnant and deliver a child for a contracted party. She may be the child's genetic mother (the more traditional form of surrogacy), or she may, as a gestational carrier, carry the pregnancy to delivery after having been implanted with an embryo. Surrogacy is a controversial, and in some jurisdictions, illegal, medical procedure.” Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogate_pregnancy

For me everything is permissible, however one must be willing to endure the consequences of his/her actions. Reproduction deals with many abstract concepts like emotions, happiness, love, relationship, parenthood, family and rights. One who goes beyond from husband and wife setting to have a baby must be willing to be struck by complicated problems in the future.

It is the same with what happened in Baby M’s story. Dr. Stern wanted a baby but his wife couldn’t give him so they have decided to legally ask Ms. Whitehead of her assistance with a legal waiver of her rights as the mother and ought to be care taker of the child and a sum of money.

In the beginning Ms. Whitehead seemed to be ok with the arrangements, but after the baby has been born, emotions wanting her baby back crept in and this made things complicated resulting to law suits and public attention was all on their case.

The ending of the story was the court recognized that Dr. Stern and Ms. Whitehead are the parents of the child and not Mrs. Stern. Also, the court is settling the visits of Mrs. Whitehead because Dr. Stern got the custody of the baby due to his status that is more favorable for the development of the child.



The usual arguments against these reproductive technologies are that “we play God in performing/having these procedures” and that it is unnatural. Assuming you want to defend reproductive technologies, how would you address these criticisms?

We always play God, don’t we? Once a judge decides on a case, he is a god in a sense.
We are little gods in every aspect of our lives because we have the will to carry on the things we want to do and not want to do.

A scientific breakthrough could be used to cause harm or to bring hope to many people. For me the motive for an action justifies the morality of an act. If your motive is to be happy and share your love to a possible son or daughter, go on – just don’t forget the possible complicated consequences because your not just dealing with a life, you’re also dealing with roles, rights and family issues.

Human reasoning cannot fathom everything.

Arguments about the morality or the immorality of a particular act arise from the different positions of people. In every battle, each side fights for its own reasons. It is assumed that each side is fighting for things that would benefit them. No one fights for nothing. People speak from different perspectives. A theory is relative to the people who follow its principles. Relativity can be a good key word. Words are tools which help in clarifying things. A set of words is relative to a particular culture. Words do not have universal meanings. In different dialects, words vary in meanings.
There are fora being held to inform the public about issues that are too vital to be taken for granted. Sex education is a concept which is considered a big need of the society today. Teens or even children must learn basic facts about sex. Knowing the rights and wrongs in the sex aspect at a young age is a good start for a kid, hence for a developing nation. A sudden and fast increase in a country’s population leads to problems and inconsistencies its entire system. In the Philippines, a number of Filipinos, especially those who live below the poverty line, do not have proper orientation about sex. There is a rise on the rate of childhood pregnancy. These kids who are supposed to be in school studying and learning for their personal enrichments are at home, taking care of their own babies. The youth today are not using what they are supposed to learn in schools.
We are living in an era where scientific advancements flourish. We now have mobile phones, laptops, mp3 players, and other gadgets that we consider vital to our daily lives. Science does not end in creating these mobile gadgets. Science has also taken steps for discovery and more inventions. In the sphere of reproduction, science started to exist since day one. The process of giving birth to a child is already assisted by science through the tools in hospitals that are used in the process. Several reproductive practices have been discovered. These processes are contested by different groups in society. The concept of artificial insemination has caught my attention the most. It is making a woman pregnant without having sex with any man. A sperm is collected and inserted to the reproductive tract of a woman for the woman to get pregnant. It gives me the chills because I never thought there would be other means for a woman to get pregnant. This technological breakthrough, if it is considered a breakthrough, seems to break the law of the Church, the Divine Law. The Church insists the natural way of family planning, which is sex without the use of any artificial means. The Church will not push its position if it is against its own dogmas. I think it is fine for people to do it, for they have the freedom to do anything they want for their future. People act in their own free will. If they think it is really needed to have the artificial insemination done, then they can do it. Any thing used for the wrong purpose is always bad. People may be against this practice, but others support it. It may be helpful to some and destructive to others. People speak from different perspectives, and with different reasons. There are always two sides of a story. There are always two opposing forces in a battle. Artificial insemination is still moral if it is used on the right purpose.