Reproductive Technologies- morally acceptable or not?

**jimenez** · Posts: 70 Join date: 2008-11-26

What do you think of the different reproductive technologies that have now become available for couples or individuals? Choose/cite one particular reproductive procedure/practice and discuss whether it is acceptable or not. 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? Otherwise, explain why you think these reproductive technologies are 'immoral'. What do you think should be the limit, if any, of a particular reproductive medical procedure? Meaning, at what point do you think does it become 'questionable'? Make sure to explain why.

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

I was just remembering the slogan of a famous shoe brand that says, “Impossible is nothing” and I could say that yes, nowadays, nothing is really impossible. It’s not surprising to find out that recent medical technology could easily manipulate anything there is to manipulate, like in the case of some reproductive technologies like, artificial insemination(AI), in vitro fertilization(IVF) and all that diverse acronyms that stands for a wide ranging reproduction assisting technology.
The question of whether these reproductive technologies are ethical or unethical boils down to one point and that is “procreative liberty.” John Robertson was very clear in saying that every person should have a procreative liberty or simply put the freedom to procreate and have a child or to avoid having them, which ever the case maybe. It is worth mentioning though that this freedom is not absolute, it must be limited at some point, particularly if there are other people involved. This freedom to procreate should be strongly dependent on the potential harm that it could inflict to other people.
My personal stand in this argument is that, any person should have the freedom to procreate and to exercise this freedom in whatever means necessary. As in the case of using reproductive technologies, it is still part of this so-called freedom to procreate and thus I think is morally acceptable. It is very similar to helping blind people see or deaf people hear, but in this case, we are just talking about people who are not able to conceive a child by natural means. I personally think that they are exactly the same. We have this sympathy to help disabled people and we should extend that sympathy to people who badly need them (people who are impotent, etc). I just want to clarify that when I speak of a morally acceptable reproductive technology, it should not be able to cause or inflict any harm to other people. For example an HIV patient who has a freedom to procreate should not be allowed to exercise his freedom because by doing so, he would inflict harm to the person that he’s going to make sexual interaction with, and also, potential harm to the baby (like what I said this freedom should not be absolute, we should consider the effect that we are going to have on other people).
To answer the question as to why we play God whenever we perform these assisted reproductive technologies, our concept of morality should be something that is internally defined; we must do something because at the very least, that is what we believe as the right thing to do. Therefore, given this freedom to procreate, each person should be given the chance to decide for themselves, they should not be controlled by the church or by the policies of the government or by anything that is external. We all have our own personal freedom and we could always exercise this freedom as long as we don’t hurt other people. I won’t see it as though we’re playing God, I mean, just because your impotent does it follow that you should not be allowed to bear a child in your entire life? It like saying that blind people should not be allowed to see forever or disabled people should not be given a chance to walk all through out their lives, solely because they were born that way or that particular condition was a gift or sometimes, a curse from God. We could see that there is nothing wrong in giving a disabled man a walking stick to help him walk, so what makes reproductive assisted technology (which main goal is to just “aid” or “help” people) immoral? I think that they are both just the same.
Final note, naturalist would say that this is strictly immoral because the process can be described as something that is unnatural. But I would like to believe otherwise, advancement in technology is by itself natural because it is a product of the human mind. Exactly the reason why we are called Homo sapiens, we think. And this thinking which leads us to discover these advance forms of reproductive assistance can be described as natural already.

De Ramos · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-24

Life can never be simple, it’s complicated. We’re done with the pathetic days of understanding “things” based on its façade and in dealing with it in full abstraction. With issues like infertility, overpopulation, parental un/fitness, irresponsible coital reproduction, and the likes- we can never tackle these stuff without the bulwar or backbone concept of procreative liberty, which is defined as having the freedom to choose whether or not to reproduce (though it has no clear cut definition at all- but for the basis of my stand and reaction, let me put it this way).

The key term for me is “freedom”. When we speak of the broad concept of such, especially when it comes to reproduction as the crux of discussion and argument, I think it is morally acceptable if that so called “freedom” will not cause any harm to any individual, be it on the part of the collaborator or on the infertile parent/s in the case of surrogacy. I’ll go straight to the point: I personally commend the use of these reproductive technologies. Subjectively speaking, these methods will bring new hopes to those couple or even individuals to experience the life of being parent—a mere example per se.

Let me reside on the issue of surrogacy. 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.

A study by the Family and Child Psychology Research Centre at City University, London, UK in 2002 concluded that surrogate mothers rarely had difficulty relinquishing rights to a surrogate child and that the intended mothers showed greater warmth to the child than mothers conceiving naturally.Anthropological studies of surrogates have shown that surrogates engage in various distancing techniques throughout the surrogate pregnancy so as to ensure that they do not become emotionally attached to the baby. Many surrogates intentionally try to foster the development of emotional attachment between the intended mother and the surrogate child. Instead of the popular expectation that surrogates feel traumatized after relinquishment, an overwhelming majority describe feeling empowered by their surrogacy experience. In fact, quantitative and qualitative studies of surrogates over the past twenty years, mostly from a psychological or social work perspective, have confirmed that the majority of surrogates are satisfied with their surrogacy experience, do not experience "bonding" with the child they birth, and feel positively about surrogacy even a decade after the birth. Assessing such studies from a social constructionist perspective reveals that the expectation that surrogates are somehow "different" from the majority of women and that they necessarily suffer as a consequence of relinquishing the child have little basis in reality and are instead based on cultural conventions and gendered assumptions. Still, surrogacy continues to be a widely debated subject who has been widely criticised by feminists, who claim that surrogate motherhood is a form of commodifying and dismembering the female body and thus a patriarchal form of violence, not unlike prostitution.

The issue today, for me, no longer involves whether the said methods or technologies are morally acceptable and correct. Instead, it is more interesting to dwell on the part of assuring the safety, effectiveness, and mutual satisfaction brought about by the new reproductive technologies. Human mind has created such. It already emerges and soon to be more institutionalized. It is said that everything exist for a reason. Why would God let the raw human being’s mind yield such? We will refute what the scripture says if we merely stuck ourselves and let our vista be stagnant, for it tells us that we are God’s manager of His creations. Then, if we are His manager (or guardian or protector or whatever term one can use to describe the role given to us by Him), we have the capacity to act according not just based on His will, but also based on our relative behavior (I am not saying that people are relative, our behavior does). And another one: What if this is His will?

There is no permanent thing in this world except change. We must accept the fact that man’s curiosity is a never-ending chaos, a continuous web (not just chain) of diverse search for methods and technologies for the benefit of all. It does not follow that once you stem out of what is natural, it would entail that you are morally incorrect. What if, by doing such, you have blazed a trail and just set the trend towards a brighter future? A “soon-to-be” natural thing?

Abala · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-24

In this day and age, technology has made it possible for people who are in different parts of the world to communicate with each other. Technology has made record stores and the compact disc nearly obsolete and put digital music on the map. Technology has made it possible for us to have knowledge or information at a mouse-click. Aside from innovations in gadgets and material objects, technology has also made it possible for people who previously cannot conceive a child conceive one.

I read the article by Ronald Munson entitled The Case of Baby ‘M’. This case was a different one, in the sense that it was something new. Dr. Elizabeth Stern and her husband, William, could not conceive a child. So, they went to an infertility clinic and opted for surrogacy. Surrogacy is where a woman agrees to carry a child in her womb and deliver it for another party or couple. The Stern’s met with a woman named Mary Beth Whitehead who agreed to be artificially inseminated with Mr. Stern’s sperm. The Stern’s also agreed to pay Whitehead $10,000 in exchange. Whitehead also expressed that she will turn the child over to the Stern’s when the child is born. However, this was not the case, the Stern’s and Whitehead went through a legal battle to get full custody of the child. A decision by a New Jersey judge stated that the Stern’s had custody, Elizabeth had been allowed to legally adopt the child, and Whitehead was not given anything. Eventually, Whitehead appealed the decision to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The Supreme Court overturned the original decision. However, the child was left to the custody of the Stern’s because Whitehead wasn’t seen to be fit to raise the child. The court held that surrogacy agreements should be done if there is no payment involved and if the surrogate mother voluntarily surrendered her parental rights.

I agree with the Supreme Court decision that surrogacy should only be permitted if there is no money involved and that the surrogate mother knows what she will go through. Parental rights should, thus, be surrendered by the surrogate mother voluntarily. Paying off the surrogate mother seems like payment for the surrogate mother’s child. It seems like the child is sold in the market. Other than that, I find there is nothing wrong about surrogacy if all parties are in agreement.

I don’t find surrogacy or any of the other reproductive technologies immoral. If a couple is able to rear a child, then why not? To undergo these procedures, there is intensive information that needs to be taken in. So I believe, that people who do want to use reproductive technologies are well-informed of the decisions that they will take. People were able to create these technologies through thorough researches. How can it be different from other technological innovations that were done through research and the natural instinct of man to know, or better lives? If we play the “God card”, it’s as if we’re putting curses on people who want to have children but are unable to conceive.

I don’t think reproductive technologies turn out to be immoral or questionable. And to think, why would these expensive technologies be available, if there really wasn’t any use for it?

rivera · Posts: 7 Join date: 2008-11-25

In our present time, there is no way we can prevent new technologies from emerging. It is as good as saying that yesterday we have no cure for this certain disease and the next thing we know, the antidote has been discovered. Without a doubt, innovations are present left and right and the question left to us is on whether we utilize it or not. Definitely, I am a fan of many sorts of technology—the internet, cellular phones, computers, and other gadgets. However, I am not a fan when it comes to assisted reproduction technology.

When I say that I am not in favor of these new reproduction technologies, I am only speaking for myself. Furthermore, it does not mean that I am totally against it and that I would condemn people who actually support it—no, I would not. It is just that I would not do it for myself, even if given the chance (reproduction technologies can be VERY very pricey).

The main reason which influenced me not patronize these so called technology is the fact that it is against my belief. As a believer of Christ, I believe that everything happens in accordance with the will of God. God has designed everything and has purpose for everything that is happening—including the things that are not taking place. If it is not meant to happen, it is not meant to happen. Let us take for example, infertility. Being infertile is not bad at all. Moreover, it does not automatically mean that you are deprived of God’s blessings. Infertility can be seen as something that is wonderful. Just like the case wherein a couple could not have their own child simply because the wife is infertile. For this specific couple, they did not see infertility as something that is negative, but instead they perceived it as something good. Having no child of their own, they have just decided to channel their love and resources for the children who badly need them. In short, they help an outreach program within their community. The example only goes to show that what humans normally see as something bad may not be bad at all. It is just a matter of having the right perspective.

Another reason which hinders me from supporting this specific kind of technology is the fact that sometimes people consider reproduction as a commodity- something to be bought and sold. This should not be the case for the reason that every human life is sacred. If in any case reproduction technology will be applied, it should only take place within the fields of health care, not in the marketplace. I don’t think it is right to make profit out of it whether in the form of the selling of eggs, sperm or embryos, or through such practices as commercial surrogacy. Also, I don’t think it is right to destroy human embryos simple because they are of “insufficient quality” or because they lack some desired quality. An example of this would be that of gender preference.

The last reason would be my belief that reproduction technology is not the only option availabe. In this world with large numbers of abandoned, malnourished, suffering and parentless children, couples or individuals who desire to become parent/s can consider adopting or fostering a child. Also, couples may consider the thought that living without children can be a fulfilling option after all.

Truly, the issue of reproduction is very complex. That is why couples or individuals considering these new reproduction technologies should be very very responsible in coming up with any decision leading to this. They must put to mind that the wellbeing of the prospective children should be at the forefront of decision-making. If possible, couples can attend comprehensive counseling about emotional, spiritual, economic, social and moral matters for these are just as important as medical counseling.

Larosa · Posts: 4 Join date: 2008-11-25 Age: 21

Assisted reproductive technology such as In vitro fertilization (IVF), where fertilization of ova takes place outside of the uterus in a Petri dish, is just one the many incessant scientific progressions open for today’s individuals, and numerous opinions arise and morality somewhat plays a big role on this inevitable event. At one side (the naturalists and the Church), reproductive technology is purely unnatural and it depicts the act of playing “God”. On the other hand, some may say that we as individuals have the capacity to think and improve one’s potentiality and hence reproductive technology is only a product on today’s advancements in human existence and hence it is morally accepted since it improves human condition and it promotes another means or alternative to procreation.

I want to point out that my stand in assisted reproductive technology in the aspect of its morality is that it is only permissible in given circumstances. Reproduction per se is somewhat known to be a blessing to married couples and I believe that certain factors should be addressed in order to comprehend my stand.
First of all, such cases that would risk one’s life can be an example of why reproductive technology is acceptable. Let me again recall that individuals have the capacity to think and with this ability we tend to seek for alternative ways in various situations that would lead to the development of humanity’s needs. If for example a married couple has the capacity to raise a child and they are both fertile, but the life of the wife is at risk if she becomes pregnant (for example she has an infantile uterus), would other alternatives be permissible to use such as assisted reproductive technology? It is very obvious to also point out that assisted reproductive technology only support what is lacking, and it only becomes moral if does not practice its ability to manipulate the whole scenario as a whole.

Still, this development comes with great responsibilities. The experimentation of embryos and the like is somewhat an issue. The people behind this advancement should already stop what they need to stop. They already know enough what they should know. It is sufficient already to learn that they can assist married couple who are in need. They should not even attempt to play “God”. Also, to be able to balance and meet halfway with the Church’s beliefs, I believe that procreation is only permissible for married couples. Procreation has always been known to be inherent in marriage. It serves as one of the fundamental aspects of it. A couple (let us assume that is not married) wants to have a baby by assisted reproductive technology. That situation of using assisted reproductive technology becomes immoral. The act of procreation that is for married couples is utterly depleted and hence becomes immoral. Also, I purport the fact that assisted reproductive technology is permissible for normal healthy married couples. It is not permissible to use this if one or both of them have abnormalities such as imbalance of mental state, one or both of them are carriers of a disease and the like.

Autonomy is an important determinant in cases like this, but what comes with that is the responsibility of the couple and the people behind this advancement per se.

Ferrer JC · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-24

Movies like “A Brave New World” and “Gattaca” gives us a peek into the possible future with highly advanced reproductive technology. In “Gattaca”, reproduction sexually—or naturally, as some people would call it— is already considered taboo, and humans which result from such activity would belong to a lower class in society. What is considered normal is “reproduction” via Petri dish wherein a couple can select the sex, the traits of their child (and can therefore prevent heart problems and such from occurring), and even decide on having twins—the possibilities are endless.

Today, however, our reproductive technologies have been bashed left and right by individuals and groups claiming it as morally unacceptable. John A. Robertson in his article gives special emphasis on procreative liberty—the freedom to have children or to avoid having them—with a thorough discussion on why such liberty is important. Yet, the concept of freedom is something that should not be used too broadly—and openly for that matter—because we can never have absolute freedom. If we did, then the world would be chaotic. Such freedom or liberty should be limited. It would be considered morally unacceptable to me, if, by the practice of our procreative liberty, one infringes upon on the rights of any individual who is a significant party, or if any significant party is harmed in the process of exercising one’s procreative liberty.

Those who were born with visual and auditory disabilities and even those who acquired such disabilities by means of an accident or by an unfortunate circumstance have been benefitting from the technology we have today. Our doctors can correct these impairments as easily as a walk down a park. We do not condemn the blind and deaf if they were to use modern technology that would give them a chance and enable them to see the light of day and hear the birds chirping once more. If we were to say that the act of infertile couples to turn to modern technology to have a child is morally unacceptable, then it is tantamount to saying that the act of blind and the deaf to use modern technology as well is morally unacceptable. The blind and the deaf have a right to turn to such technology, and that right is protected. Suffice to say just like other rights, our procreative liberty, in its very essence and within the bounds of certain limitations, is something that has to be protected as well.

I do not think it is morally unacceptable if couples were to turn to our new reproductive technology. Surrogacy, sperm, egg and embryo donations and such are a means to an end (to have a child or not, whatever is the case). If such an end does not infringe upon the rights of others and does not inflict any harm to any significant party—as I mentioned earlier, then the procreative liberty of turning to these technologies is morally acceptable. Most of the issues and controversies come after the child is born—who should raise the child? What if the child would like to meet and establish a relationship with his or her biological father or surrogate mother? And so on. To me, the issues do not directly contradict the nature of the reproductive technology. Instead, they focus on what would happen later and is the subject of another discussion.

We might assume the role of God in turning to these technologies and seem “unnatural” if we were to reproduce via these means. However, I think that there is nothing unnatural about it. The reproductive technology we have today is something that is created by the human mind. God provided us with the faculties to think, inquire and come up with solutions. By the development of such ideas, we have come up with something—and this is natural for the human mind. God must know that we would come up with something like this. The moral issue here is not a question of us playing God’s role but a question of whether we implicate human rights and interests. Furthermore, I think that the issue on the “unnaturalness” of reproductive technology as a means to exercise our procreative freedom contradicts itself. We can come up with a more general idea that can serve as a compromise on this issue. They believe that the natural way to reproduce is through sexual means, with no reproductive technology involved. If this is the case, then it is unnatural for technology to be used and is thus considered immoral. But on a more general note, what difference does a fertile couple have from an infertile couple aside from the fact that the latter does not have the capability to produce offspring naturally? Don’t they both want a child in the end? What I mean to say is that, these two different couples have the natural “tendency”—for the lack of a better word—to procreate. Humans, in general, have a natural tendency to procreate, and this is the underlying factor that I believe would resolve the issue on whether it is unnatural for us to use reproductive technology.

A future, similar to the ones shown by the movies I have mentioned above, is not impossible from happening. With our current state of reproductive technology, maybe in a couple of decades or at the next turn of the century, we might have such a future.

SAGNIP · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-25

According to Robertson, individuals have the right to procreative liberty which is the freedom to have children or to avoid having them. Further, Robertson believes that rational, well-informed individuals have the capacity to choose whether to use the reproductive technologies (collaborative reproduction or reproduction-assisting technologies) or not as long as their acts will cause no harm to others.

In my opinion, couples have the freedom in choosing whether to have offsprings, in the assumption that couples are rational, well-informed and responsible. Couples have the liberty on procreative reproduction as long as they do not violate any moral duty (higher form of standard – come up with an agreement). In addition, individuals also have the duty not to interfere with that choice. For example, due to infertility, a couple has decided to look for an egg donor in order to have a child. Deciding on this matter, the couple has considered factors, consequences and concrete basis (base on reality) upon coming on the decision. People, should respect and support to what the couple has decided.

On the other hand, the dilemmas on the third parties (donor gametes or surrogates) should be eradicated. For as long as couple and donor or surrogate have decided on an agreement, no side should break it, because being a rational person means knowing the possible consequences of an action. Thus hesitation, changing of minds, withdrawals – as mere acts of subjectivism should occur. Same with issues of secrecy versus disclosure of collaborative birth and anonymity and information about donors and surrogate, in which shall be determined in the agreement of both sides. Meaning, revealing or not the collaborative birth to the child depends upon the decision or agreement between the couple and collaborator. In this, as Robertson says, individuals have the freedom to make a choice as long as this will cause no harm to others.

Technologies help human lives for better, the issue appears on how humans use these technologies. I believe that the existing moral today is temporary and will soon develop into a more concrete and objective manner. A moral (maybe through undergoing a cultural revolution) that will enlighten and make an equal society.

Penetrante · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-24

In many ways, the discovery of the new means of procreating is, I believe, an advance of humanity. It provides opportunity of actually raising children to those who, for medical, legal, or cultural reasons, cannot have ones.

These technologies, such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), artificial insemination, embryo donation, and contract pregnancy, in a sense make those couples or individuals freer having to expand their procreative options. To argue why these are acceptable, we take as an example IVF, a process by which egg cells are fertilized by sperm outside of the womb (in vitro). The IVF process requires sperm, eggs, and a uterus. To achieve a pregnancy, any of these requirements can be provided by a third person. As long as it is the choice of the couple, heterosexual or homosexual they may be, to have a third party reproduction, I do not think there is anything wrong with that especially if it allows them to be released from that resignation of the impossibility to raise a child. They are, after all, entitled to make their own decisions for their relationship.

Some sociologists and legal scholars deem new reproduction to be inherently progressive and liberating, albeit issues pervading the technologies need to be addressed, including legal and ethical considerations and racial disparity in its use. Critics may claim that applying the new means of procreating is tantamount to playing God and that it is unnatural and therefore immoral. However, as we have discussed in class, wouldn’t the fact that such technologies were conceived by the human mind make them natural? Is it not the will of God to enlighten those inventors and materialize these means of increasing opportunities that humanity once thought to be impossible? God can make much more awesome things that are beyond human comprehension and it is but a simple thing to make us capable of new means of reproduction. After all, the book of Genesis, if we are to be fundamentalist, commands humans to multiply without specifying the permissible methods, so I guess what is not stated to be forbidden must be permissible. Also, the desire to procreate is, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, one of our deep-seated thrusts as humans or those inclinations and tendencies which are natural. Therefore, procreating, be it the old-fashioned way or by means of new reproductive technologies, is natural and moral if we are to argue in line with the Natural Law Theory.

If there should be any limit to these reproductive medical procedures, I think one would be that of practicing them but at the same time neglecting the oppressions that go along with it. I would like to cite Prof. Dorothy E. Roberts in her article Race and the New Reproduction in view of the fact that these technologies are barely accessible to African Americans, that “our vision of procreative liberty must include the eradication of group oppression, and not just a concern for protecting the reproductive choices of the most privileged.”

barron · Posts: 7 Join date: 2008-11-24

As the world and its society advance to a stage wherein things thought as absurd are now becoming a possibility, artificial reproduction is one of the things made possible by the advent of breakthroughs in technology.

With this in mind, several techniques are now possible to achieve pregnancy by barren wives, husbands or couples. I do not think that we are “playing God” by administering or patronizing these methods. I would like to think that we want to achieve our full potential as human beings that these methods are somewhat necessary or an aid for us to be.

With rights becoming an emphasis for others to achieve or overcome the limits imposed on them, the right of having a family or creating one enables them to have a child whether or not they are old and impotent. Who are we to restrict a person or a couple of not having a child that would give them happiness and contentment? If it is within their rights to produce an offspring, I think we should let them as they do not infringe upon our right to do so by natural means.

It being unnatural is somewhat true as it does not really take the natural course of things, especially the conceiving part. But what does being unnatural really mean, not being able to be pregnant through the sexual means? Is that an aspect of being unnatural that some people abhor? But then, is not natural to be pregnant and give birth and having a child that you can call your own? In Vitro Fertilization, embryo donation and other forms of procreation enable childless couples or persons a chance of becoming a parent. I think that these methods are a means for those people who really wants a child that they can support early in life (pregnancy).

I think that people should not condemn this idea readily. I think that this is morally permissible as it gives a person a chance of producing life and involving other people in the process. And that it should not be restricted on others on the basis of their race. On the aspect of age, I think that there should be a thorough examination of the implications. We are given a right to think for ourselves and a responsibility to shoulder the choices that we want to make and so we must consider the needs and wants other people think.

shandi · Subject: answer to assignment # 3 Fri Dec 12, 2008 2:07 am

In the article that I have chosen, Professor Dorothy Roberts talks about how new technologies reinforce racial discrimination among Americans. She argues that the advent of these new reproductive technologies aggravates the inequality between White and Black Americans. In vitro fertilization, contract pregnancy and embryo donation among many others, serve only the interest of the wealthy and privileged White Americans and discriminates against the poor and marginalized Black Americans. Her study focuses on in vitro fertilization, the most expensive and the least accessible technology to Black Americans. In vitro fertilization is a laboratory procedure in which sperm are placed with an unfertilized egg in apetri dish to achieve fertilization, the embryo is then transferred into the uterus to begin a pregnancy or cryopreserved for future use. This method reinforces racial discrimination in various ways. First, IVF is very costly and follows an astringent process which only the rich (usually the White Americans) can afford. Second is the presence of cultural preferences in fertility clinics. There are instances wherein physicians refuse to render services to Black infertile patients. It’s as if the genes of Black Americans are undesirable that they should be excluded from these services. Third, some Black Americans see infertility as something that is not natural therefore it is abnormal. They have a self-imposed notion that Black is a fruitful race and to be an infertile Black is totally embarrassing. Finally, IVF helps maintain the racial caste system by preserving the notion of “white racial purity”. IVF allows a couple to have genetically-related children. If IVF is available only to White Americans then it only helps to proliferate the White American bloodline.
In my opinion I quite agree to the points raised by Professor Roberts that new reproductive technologies aggravates the divide among Black and White Americans. The facts presented in the article clearly show the unfair and unequal treatment to Black infertile couples who wished to have a child. Reproductive technologies should be an option to everyone regardless of race and of color. If reproductive technologies are made available only for a certain class or race, it ceases to enhance human freedom and liberty by expanding the dimensions of pro-creation but instead it becomes now an instrument of domination and exploitation. Whatever the color of our skin is, we are all humans. We all came from the same species and no person/race has the right to determine which race is superior and subordinate. The White vs. Black American reminds me of one story in the Bible wherein the Egyptians are growing insecure because of the Hebrews natural skillfulness and prowess. As a result the Egyptians made the Hebrews there slaves. History will also show us that conflicts arise between and among different races that competes for economic and political reasons.
The solution that I propose to this dilemma is to make these reproductive technologies available, accessible and as much as possible affordable to both Black and White Americans. Discrimination is an ugly thing. If we want to live peacefully in this world, we should at least harmonize with other people different from us. Also, doctors and fertility clinics that will refuse to render services to infertile Black couples should be sanctioned. However, these solutions are only piece-meal solutions. We should attack the root problem of all which is racism.

I have nothing against these new reproductive technologies because it gives infertile couples a chance to have children. I know some married couples who after years of living together still can’t “make” babies. If I were in their place, I would feel terribly sad of not having a baby. Having children, though it is not always the case, glues the relationship between husband and wife. It makes the relationship stronger since having children means you have to consider their welfare apart from yours and your husband. The presence of these new reproductive technologies is a gift to humanity. I don’t think we are playing God by supporting these reproductive technologies. God gave us the capacity to think in order for us to solve our problems. Moreover, these new reproductive technologies are a product of human mind. The procedure and the steps may be artificial but it is still natural since it is born out of man’s reason, intelligence and ability.

However, there are certain limitations when it comes to practicing these reproductive technologies. Anything that is unregulated becomes detrimental to a person. I think that laws should be implemented regarding the proper practice of these technologies. I think that women are the ones who are most likely to be abused in the use of these reproductive technologies. In the case of surrogate mothers, I think that if it goes unregulated, it may have harmful consequences. Some unfortunate women might be forced to use their bodies for financial gains. The use of these technologies might enforce the status quo of women being subordinate to men and also the regard for women’s bodies as “bodies for producing babies”.

Alegre,CB · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-25

In the new fold of our history, various forms of technology are being developed. Recently, even the process of artificial reproduction for infertile couples is one of the highly developed processes brought by modern technology. Upon reading the article of Dorothy E. Roberts entitled Race and the New Reproduction, I was surprised that even in modern processes of reproduction, racial disparity still exists. It is really observable that reproductive technology such as artificial insemination and vitro fertilization (IVF) are used almost exclusively by white people. However, this racial disparity has nothing to do with rates of infertility; it’s just the interplay of financial barriers, cultural preferences and professional manipulation. According to Roberts, the high cost of the IVF procedure places it out of reach of most Black people whose average income falls far below that of whites.

When it comes to the issue of being morally acceptable, my stand is: reproductive technology is morally acceptable as long as infertile couples have legitimate reasons for procreation. For example, there are fertile women who undergo reproductive technology because their husbands are infertile, they might not want to undergo the process but still, they do it so that they will have children who are genetically-related. I agree with Roberts that it is the genetic relatedness that truly challenges the meaning of family and for this reason many couples choose to undergo artificial reproduction. However, artificial reproduction through IVF (or other artificial way) is not the only way to have children. There are women, fertile or not, who want to have children and undergo this process because bearing children might cause their lives and they have no alternative.

This issue is really complicated because we don’t know the reason of the couples who undergo such process. Although infertile couples have the freedom to choose reproductive technology, they should take into consideration various factors that might be affected by the process. For Robert’s article, the main factor to consider is racial disparity and this issue cannot be addressed by merely discouraging people to do that, I believe that government intervention is a big help by limiting the use of this technology.

LOPEGA · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-25

The use of the different reproductive technologies is acceptable. In fact, mankind should be grateful that we can now overcome infertility. Why should we subject those who are not able to bear children but wanted to become parents to sorrows and agonies if we can solve their problems? Some people have the perceptions of “pregnancy completes a woman” and/or “a real man can make a woman pregnant”. Or not becoming parents may be expressions of failure to some and thus consider their lives unmeaningful. So why deprive those who can not bear children of the unexplainable emotions of becoming parents when becoming one is what they wanted the most? The use of reproductive technology is permissible if undergoing such procedure will not pose harm to anybody involved and to the possible offspring, especially. And that, one is prepared for whatever medical, social and emotional risk that may come.

An example of reproductive technology is the In vitro fertilization (IVF). “In vitro fertilization (IVF) is usually a four-part process. First, the woman’s ovaries are stimulated chemically to induce ovulation. Second, several nearly ripe ova (eggs) are retrieved surgically through the insertion of a fine needle and tubing. Sperm too is collected, as in artificial insemination. Third, the sperm and ova are fertilized in a laboratory and allowed to cleave or multiply several times. Finally, one or often several embryos (also called pre-embryos, blastocysts or zygotes) are inserted into the woman’s uterus where, hopefully, at least one will implant and grow”.

The thing that I dislike the most in the IVF is one of its procedures. It is not acceptable that the fertilized ova will be allowed to multiply then undergo genetic diagnosis. The parent-to-be will determine genetic make up of the embryo according to what they want. The “excess” embryo will be “discarded”. In such way, they treat the embryos like mere guinea pigs. Embryos have potential of becoming a person that should be realized or at least try to. Or they can cryopreserve the “excess” embryo for stem cells use instead.

Genetic diagnosis should focus on severe diseases rather than traits such as sex or appearance. “Discarding” embryos will only be acceptable if it is because they wanted to make sure that the child is perfectly healthy or those that have the least chance to survive.

Another unacceptable thing with regards to the procedures of IVF is the high chance of multiple pregnancy. They transplant two or three embryos so that there is high possibility that pregnancy will be successful. It would be cheaper to undergo again with the procedure, it first try is unsuccessful, than raising four kids at the same time.

Science and Technology has its limitations. The technological and scientific innovations, discoveries and inventions like the reproductive technologies are products of science and technology that were made primarily to improve and save the lives of mankind and/or to some extent to save the earth itself. How these products are used is beyond the control of science and technology. Thus the use of reproductive technologies is never “playing like God” but a mere application of the products of science and technology. Also, the view that reproductive technologies are not unacceptable because it is unnatural is unsound. Scientists or doctors merely assist, through the use of the products of science and technology, so that natural process may become successful like pregnancy. Just like how physically disabled individuals who make use wheelchairs to assist them in moving around. Wheelchairs are unnatural and product of science and technology. But we consider its use as acceptable and humane. The use of reproductive technologies works the same way-they only assist so that natural processes happen successfully.

Whoever infertile or those are not really able to bear child/children may resort to reproductive technologies. May it be a couple, single woman or a man, homosexuals, transgender etc. For as long as these individuals are capable financially, emotionally, physically and psychologically to care and love a child, it is acceptable. Gender does not determine the “responsibleness” of an individual. So whoever wanted to experience the joy and all the emotions that goes with being pregnant should allowed to resort to reproductive technology. As long as they are prepared and be responsible of whatever the consequences might be.

There should be limitations and regulation in the access and the nature of functions of reproductive technologies. It would not be right that reproductive technology maybe used for “designer babies”. “Designer babies” are just product of ones whims and caprices. Making sure that a child’s eyes are blue or that he/she has cute dimples is not the primary purpose of reproductive technology. It should only be limited to those who are infertile and those that are not capable physically to have a child, like homosexuals. Likewise, reproductive technology should not be used for commercialization purposes. Also, trying to have a perfect or the best child through the use of reproductive technology will only change the societal structure. A society divided into the “best” and not. In such a way, reproductive technologies would only be a means of discrimination and oppression.

mjgdeguzman · Posts: 4 Join date: 2008-11-25

Answering the question whether Reproductive Technology is moral or immoral, we have to take into consideration some cases that may support the practice of using it. In our generation, it has been an easy observation that the complexity of the human brain has led to produce some things that are ‘unnatural’. Such developments in reproductive technologies are tagged as artificial means in producing an offspring, therefore it is immoral. I think we have to consider a lot of cases before coming up with a conclusion that using these new reproductive technologies are immoral or moral.Individuals are faced with the difficulties in judging moral dilemmas and/or issues. In our society at present, the role of the church has been a big influence in deciding whether these recent developments in procreation are moral.

Married couples in a typical society consider having children of their own induces a certain feeling of happiness and satisfaction yet it should be in a natural, healthy way. But what about those heteroxuals, gays, lesbians, and infertile couples wanting to have biological offsprings?

I have read an essay favoring the so called “Proactive Liberty” written by John A. Robertson. Proactive liberty simply argues that in a society, people shall not be restricted to their personal convictions, faith, and religion and state interventions in making rational decisions so long as they can be held responsible. In essence, proactive liberty is the freedom to decide whether to have children or not to have children; individuals shall be given the freedom to reproduce or not to reproduce genetically. Reproduction, as they say, is always genetic and it occurs when man’s sperm cells meets up a woman’ egg cells turning into an embryo once it was fertilized. In essence, the recent developments concerning reproductive technology shall be made accessible and available to individuals who wanted to have their gestational babies in an ‘unnatural way’.

It has also been argued that ‘Proactive Liberty’ is a negative right as pointed out by John A. Robertson, meaning it shall not go along with government intervention in relation to proactive choices. Furthermore, it is not the duty of the government to protect the rights and freedom of the individuals in making proactive choices since it is not guided by their constitution.

The reproductive technologies that has been recently developed are in vitro fertilization (IVF), artificial insemination (AI) and the like. The IVF allows a woman’s biological reproduction to be transferred to another woman carrying her egg cells without having to produce genetically. Now, this procedure has been argued as being immoral because it is done in an unnatural way. But how do we really consider these procedures unnatural? To what extent that this is considered unnatural? Some would argue that using Reproductive Technology is immoral because is not natural. The complexity of the human brain ‘naturally’ has the tendency to go beyond human imagination.

A lot of us would not easily resort to using these procreative procedures simply because we are guided by our personal convictions. Given our personal convictions and our faith in God, church authorities may say that we are trying to play the ability of our creator to create lives. And that is immoral because God is the one and only powerful entity to create lives. But what if God blessed us with the ability to go beyond the natural way by making the human brain capabilities to create almost the possibility pf all things impossible? As what our Pastor in our church have told us, “With God, nothing is impossible.” Don’t you think it is time to open our minds to a new kind of reality? To accept the reality that we as humans, created by an all-powerful, omnipotent, and omniscient God, has the ability to go beyond human expectations?

Taking a stand on the issues, I am not against of reproductive technology and proactive technology. Since we are rational beings created by God, we have the ability to think and rethink and that is natural. So may be recent developments that are believed by conservatives as artificial, are natural. It is because it is still a product of the human mind. The human mind is wonderfully, magnificently, and fearfully created by a magnificent and wonderful God.

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

In a world we are living right now, many would say that almost everything is possible in our world. Human beings are able to find new discoveries and technologies in order to improve human life. One of these innovations is the introduction of reproductive technologies such as in-vitro fertilization and artificial insemination. These two reproductive technologies aim to allow those unable to conceive a child to bear one. For these do not involve procedures done outside of the human body, and totally oppose the teachings of the church of procreation, these advancements brought several moral issues.

I, personally think that the use of reproductive technologies is acceptable when there is really a valid reason for procreation. People have their own right to decide for themselves unless they do not cause harm to other people. On the issue of reproductive technologies, people have the right to exercise their reproductive freedom in any means possible unless they do not affect other people negatively. For the church only allows a man and a woman united by a marital covenant of love to have a child, this must also be applied on those who needed to go through in-vitro fertilization or artificial insemination. The couple must be married to consider these advancements as acceptable. One example wherein in-vitro fertilization or artificial insemination can be used is on the case where both or one of the couple is infertile. Infertility can be considered as a disability of a person because of the inability to bear a child. Through this new knowledge, a disability is given a solution.

For the world is continuously changing, and several events may continue to support a given stand, we must not immediately close our minds to what we think is naturally not correct. We must continue to understand and analyze both sides’ means and ends. By doing so, we are able to open our minds to the possibility of knowing the deeper sense and importance of such new knowledge.