Considering the topic of elective gender selection, I find myself erring on the side of Marcy Darnovsky. Thus, I say no, parents should not be allowed to select the sex of their unborn child. First, I feel that the risk associated with the “biopsy or freezing harming the embryo” through such a procedure reveals that it is not justifiable. Additionally, because knowing the sex of an embryo may result in he or she being “created and destroyed,” accepting such happenings would show tolerance for the murder of an innocent life. Nevertheless, my stance is not merely because of ones’ rights or because it is “by its very definition sexist,” it is merely because my convictions tell me that it is scripturally wrong. The preimplantation genetic …show more content…
I stand firm on my belief that God is Creator; therefore, mankind should not attempt to take over that which is up to Him, which includes the life that He chooses to form. Some might argue, that God allowed the technology to be created; thus, He must be okay with it. Nevertheless, I would say that if this is the standard to which we approach decisions in life, one could also state that He allowed mankind to create harmful, debilitating drugs, revealing it must be okay to use them. This logic, in my opinion, is not logic but an attempt to justify that which may not be acceptable in the eyes of the Lord. Our Master did not create us as puppets, but as humans who were given free will, we must remember that per 2 Timothy 2:26, we can find ourselves captured in the devils’ snare, doing “his will.” With this said, I strongly believe that children are a gift from God, not something to be meddled with, altered and made to fit our standards, they are each to be unique according to His design. If as believers we trust in God, we too must not forget that He alone will provide us the desires of our hearts, as in 1 Samuel 1:27, he heard the prayer for a child, and He alone “granted” the request. Therefore, may we have patience, waiting on the Lord to provide that which He
"Technological innovations in the reproductive area means being prepared to explicitly acknowledge that it is acceptable to destroy embryos under certain circumstances in order to encourage research on alleviating disease embryos. This in turn acknowledges the role of science in rectifying what may have gone a defective state during development.” But what is wrong with it that makes it questionable to those who follow christianity? It is the fact that many label this act as immoral and lives are being loss in the process as of which it really a flip of a coin on whether the “test tube baby”, or experiment some would call, would survive or not. We know that God is the author of life, but scientists
The question is, why not allow parents to choose their gender solely based on preference? One of the main problems with this is that choosing gender may cause sexism, the belief that one gender is greater than another. Another problem could be gender imbalance, seeing that if many women chose to have girls, then in the future there would be an imbalance of gender, making it difficult to repopulate. Along with gender, scientists can also change the genetic code of an egg to make the baby more intelligent, or to have better health. Some problems with this could be that altering genes to make humans smarter could cause a “superior” race, therefore making people who have not had their genes altered looked down upon, and this would not be good for society. This also falls into the category of “designer baby syndrome,” which causes the parents to view their child as some sort of trophy, and that brings into question whether or not the parents are doing what is best for their child, and if they are having a child for selfish reasons. Another point Law
During IVF, the egg is typically fertilized in a lab before being implanted into the uterus. Before transferring the embryo into the uterus, some fertility clinics offer patients the option of choosing what sex embryo they want. Although IVF is more commonly used for families struggling with infertility rather than for the sole purpose of sex selection, sex selection is still an option. This seems both futuristic and controversial but Codington-Lacerte argues that prenatal sex selection methods allow parents to make informed choices about the makeup of their families (Codington-Lacerte, “Point: Sex Selection”). This type of eugenics is seemingly harmless because in choosing a sex for their child, parents aren’t really damaging society.
Gender selection is currently illegal in Australia because the IVF experts who would be required to do the job agree that it is ethically wrong. ”the use of a human embryo through the use of artificial reproductive technology is unfair as the admission to life for the child should not be conditional upon any circumstances” (loc.gov, 2014). To gather the opinion of the public, 20 surveys were conducted and only 7 were completed. 72% of the participants agreed that the use of gender selection is wrong as it could unbalance the natural gender balance and that a child being brought into this world should be loved by the parents whether the baby will be a male or female. 28% of the participants that believed gender selection should only be legal when there is a gender related medical disease that needs to be taken into consideration. There are many reasons as to why gender selection should become legal or to stay illegal; one major reason for it becoming legal is that it will
Gender Selection is a medical way utilized by planned guardians who desire to pick the gender of their baby. It is not legal in all nations so there is a new phenomenon which is known “reproductive tourism”. Gender Selection became a debate in our era as it has its advantages as carrying on the family name and decreasing population ,it also has its disadvantages as it is against some religions,and it consumes money .
Medical professionals today can screen for certain genetic traits (genetic diseases and sex) with in vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic diagnosis to obtain a healthy child, and reproductive technology continues to improve. With this in mind, the question arises whether sex selection is ethical. Julian Savulescu, Uehiro Professor of Practical Ethics at Oxford University, argues that sex selection is moral, based on his ethical principle of Procreative Beneficence: that “couples (or single reproducers) should select the child, of the possible children they could have, who is expected to have the best life, or at least as good a life as the others, based on the relevant, available information” [Savulescu 1]. Savulescu claims
The technology of the world today is fast-paced, fascinating, and extremely helpful in many cases. The ever-changing field of medical technology has changed and/or saved the lives of countless people. Doctors are able to perform procedures on patients today that were unheard of only 5 years ago. However, not all procedures and practices may be biblically ethical. Christians must decide which procedures are God honoring and which ones are not, especially when infertility is involved. Dr. Rae mentioned five theological foundations for bioethics that believers should evaluate in order to discern the uses of technology in the interference of the natural process of conception. Dr. Rae’s list consisted of the following: Dominion Mandate, Impact of
Babies are commonly viewed as the most innocent lifeforms in the world. Not only does their cuteness touch the lives of everyone they come in contact with, but their inability to carry judgments makes them someone most of us admire. Unfortunately, while the baby may not be able to express their likes and dislikes, their parents have already introduced the baby to the idea of favoritism, even before it makes its way out of the womb. New technology has allowed parents to select the sex of their baby. As a result, the idea behind childbirth being a miracle, as well as a magical process, is now lost. By allowing parents to select the sex of their children, society is enabling people to value one gender over another and neglect the true intentions
With new technologies available everyday, it seems almost as if we can customize our children. Reproduction is no longer an outcome of random and inherited genes, but now it’s a process of creating the child that we want to have. Fertility clinics are in debate as to whether or not it is ethical to be able to determine the sex of our children. Some view this as a valid option, while others see it as another step down the road to designer babies. But how far is too far? That is a question that we can only answer for ourselves. While this article remains unbiased, we are able to form our own opinion after seeing the pros and cons of both sides.
A human, born or unborn, has the right to have his/her own identity, naturally created by a mother or father, not a scientist.
The topic of abortion is very controversial, but nothing has ever been learned by avoiding tough subjects. What are your views on abortion? Under what circumstances, if any, would you consider it? If you were a lawmaker, what would be your stand on this issue? (*In India, boys are valued more than girls and amniocentesis has become widespread. In one province, only one in thousands of abortions following: amniocentesis was that of a male fetus, the rest were females. How do you feel about abortion as a tool for gender selection? Suppose that one of the female fetuses in the previous example was also identified as having suffered severe mental and physical damage to the point that, after birth, the resulting child would mentally and physically be unable to care for itself. Would this information influence (change) your decision?)
9 The risk of birth effects of single born IVF children are relatively small as it is 1-2% greater than naturally conceived single born children. 6 IVF technologies have allowed screening of the embryo for genetic diseases and gender before implantation. Subsequently, couples have undergone IVF to specifically choose the preferred gender, and only have said embryos implanted. This is considered morally inappropriate if the gender selection is for non-medical reasons, such as a gender which is not susceptible to a particular genetic disease. Sex selection could result in further distortion of the male to female ratio where there is substantial preference over a gender. Currently, the male to female ratio in China, and some parts of India, is 1:2. 10 Controversy over the use of IVF is prevalent, particularly within the Roman Catholic Church who opposes IVF, egg donation and surrogacy as they view it as unnatural. 11
As science advances, it is becoming very common for parents from all over the world to select their babies gender by abortion. However, this trend is unacceptable and detrimental to the natural balance of things, society and the future of humanity.
There are numerous parents who would agree that the main concern of parenting is that they must take care of and protect their child from anything and everything. Most hope to give them the best life humanly possible free of diseases, premature death, and help in any way. With the new discoveries and usage bioengineering technology, creating the perfect child is not far from reach. Couples are able to genetically alter the fetus before it is born to rule out any concerning birth defects. With technology like this the question that needs to be asked is whether or not such practices should even be legal. Human bioengineering, or eugenics, through egg donation, in-vitro fertilization (IVF), karyomapping, and other techniques should be made illegal in the United States due to embryotic destruction, bioengineered humans being held to extremely high expectations, and harsh side effects for the women involved.
Whereas Julian Savulesco, an ethicist, “says that people should be free to choose their children’s traits.” He suggests that the couple should be given all the correct information to help them make the right decision. So they should be given all the accurate test results so they can decide which child will have the best life possible. His main argument is that the couples are the ones entitled to the decision of which embryo to select. Whether they want a child without any genetic disorder or whether they do, it’s their choice. Whereas, a physician, Samuel D. Hensley, “condemns foetal genetic testing … and PGD … on ethical and religious grounds.” He believes that selecting against embryos without genetic disease completely ignores the unborn child. Hensley takes a more religious stance in comparison to the 0ther viewpoints and he believe that PGD and all forms of genetic testing is “playing God.”