Kant Embryo

The act of exchanging lives can be a very dangerous thing. For example, shooting an armed intruder. The debate of saving a life but taking another in the process is complicated and quite interesting. People may not see the connection at first, but that argument is linked to the ethical issue of therapeutic cloning. Therapeutic cloning is the copying of body parts or genetic material through an embryo for medical usage. It kills the unborn offspring in order to help a living human being, who is having some type of problem in their body. It can have many benefits to helping the living, but has disadvantages to the unborn. The question is which one matters the most.

In the article “Selecting the Perfect Baby: The Ethics of “Embryo Design,” is an article about a married couple, name Larry and June Shannon. They have a daughter, four years old, name Sally, who is diagnosed with Fanconi Anemia. Therefore, the Shannons are getting help from a research team, to find the perfect bone marrow transplant for Sally. The Shannon couple is also interested in having another child and they are aware of the risks and odds of success. However, a PGD process has to be performed and the couple must undergo an IVF procedure more than once, before the implantation is successful, to be able to produce a healthy full-term baby.

The ethical issues with this procedure are not rooted in the utilization of non-human elements to aid the procreative process. So why the moral fuss over the McNamara's method of growing embryos? The heart of the issue was the potential risk to the child. Animal diseases, either known or unknown, can easily be transmitted to humans through xenotransplantation (the use of live animal cells, tissues and organs for transplantation)[9]. There is the potential, both in xenotransplantation and in the utilization of animals in the procreation process, of placing humans at major risk of contracting new types of infectious diseases[10]. Clearly the McNamara’s view and attitude towards creating their offspring may not have been the most ethical way but they would have done absolutely everything to have the one thing they wanted in this world: a child. Do we have a right to have a child at all costs? It should be obvious that our rights must be limited for the sake of others, especially when our own actions would endanger the lives of others[11]. Are there ethical limits to our good, God-given desire to reproduce? There are limits to all our good desires, precisely because these desires are given by God to be coordinated with one another according to His specific design for human beings. When we add to this the fact that our God-given desires are mingled with sinful desires, selfish impulses, and fallen drives, the need for limits becomes even more apparent[12].

We are living in a new era where technology can help women have babies in unconventional ways. Having children is a personal choice. In some people’s view, government should not be regulating when people should and should not start having a family. The ethical issue is when the parents start applying for governmental benefits after the baby is conceived via In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and born posthumously. When practicing IVF, are we violating God’s will? This paper is to discuss the views of the four candidates interviewed in relation to posthumous conception and delivery, their views on benefits/inheritance entitlement to these babies, and ethical principles and theories in

embryo does not justify the means. On the other side of the debate are many scientists and

Embryonic harvesting and freezing is considered an ethical dilemma and morally unacceptable. Karen Capato reserved sperm for in-vitro fertilization posthumous and reared twins as a result. In this instance, technology was used after the death of a spouse to create life posthumous and the use of such is considered an act of God. “The Bible mentions in its parables that we should not to disrupt a life” (E. Horning, personal communication, January 31, 2013). Manipulating genetics

This is another moral debate of its own, however, for the sake of argument I will say that an embryo cannot be considered a human until conception, thus creating destruction of the embryo morally permissible. Secondly, if it is known and proven through science that the child will be severely disabled and suffer greatly throughout its entire life, it cannot and should not be considered evil to prevent the extreme and lifelong suffering of a child. Finally, a religious person may believe and hope for a miracle in the individual’s condition however it is not right to rely solely on a miracle when there is scientific fact that the patient will

The embryo is then implanted in the mother’s uterus to experience a traditional pregnancy and birth. The only thing different for these children is their means of conception. This idea of gene therapy may have become a feat of science that could potentially save countless before they are ever endangered, but with all new advancements there comes opposition. Many people argue that this means of medical practice goes against human nature and that taking randomness out of the creation of life betrays

An issue that has caused great legal debate is the freezing of eggs and embryos. Freezing allows savings eggs or embryos for later implantation; not all are used. However, frozen embryos and eggs generally have a lower success rate. The question arises of what happens to them if the couple decides to divorce, or one or both of them dies? These situations have been decided through court determinations. In 1987, the status of frozen embryos was brought before the Victorian courts with the case of Mr and Mrs Rios, who had died in a plane crash. The embryos from Mr and Mrs Rios had been frozen in 1981. There were many ethical and moral concerns regarding this case. Should the embryos remain frozen indefinitely, be donated, or kept for research? The Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act

Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative, explored in his “Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals” (1785), suggests that if we (i.e., all human creatures) are considered as beings with the capacity to reason, by this standard we must also all share the capacity for moral autonomy and thus, in this sense, human rights should be considered as universal. His deontological position suggests that humans, as members of a shared global community, have a responsibility to behave according to certain standards. This idea of autonomy lies at the core of his argument because he suggests that an action done un-willingly is one which lacks any moral worth. Contradictory to any consequentialist position, an important stance in any human rights debate, Kant

The principle of nonmaleficence, to do no harm, in reproductive technology can be applied to the prospective parents and the prospective child-the embryo. The procedures involved in attempting to impregnate a woman can be physically and emotionally damaging, but rewarding if done successfully. But the parties must first determine to what extent and at what cost will they risk to achieve their ultimate goal. It would cause great harm physically to the embryos if there were multiple unsuccessful attempts, but many would argue that the end outweighs the means, that it is worth it if the result was a viable pregnancy and healthy child.

The author’s experience of donating eggs to an infertile couple was life-changing to her point-of-view of new life and the reader’s knowledge of egg donation. At the end of her story, I started to agree the author’s perspective of giving her eggs to someone else. During the story, I noticed that she started to worry about the health of the unborn child and donating eggs takes a long process by checking her health and injecting many needles to her body. In addition, she does not want to let the couples down because they wanted a child of their own and cannot do it without her eggs. My personal belief about egg donation is almost the same as a child adoption. Beginning of the process is where the couples find the right egg donor like a perfect

Kant says on page 25, “a categorical imperative, which declares an action to be of itself objectively necessary without reference to any purpose hold an apodeictic practical principle.” This one quote can be broken down into two different sections that can be further explains in the text. The main idea though is the CI is a set of rules that ought be followed by everyone because

Kant’s ideas that the ends do not justify the me and the means should be ends in and of themselves causes mediocrity decay, and suffering. While the perpetrates just say we meant well. That is why the road to hell is pa? With good intentions. The only proper way to judge an action is by the resulting reaction. This idea that living by the laws of causes and effect is beneath human beings because it would make us no different than animals. Kant asserts that since human beings are capable of comply thoughts and moral reasoning it is incumbent upon humans to disregard ? Of nature growing the rest of the

People have an intrinsic worth above mere things or possessions. In order for people to cohabitate peacefully and respectively, there’s a need for universal laws based on good will and absolute moral beliefs. It is this moral belief which is based on reason and must be uniformly abided by. This allows humanity to function as an amicable society; an amicable society that is achieved by treating ourselves and others with respect and dignity. Immanuel Kant’s theory known as the categorical imperative expressed an absolute belief in universal moral laws which enables humanity to be treated well. (Rachels EMP 129 & 139)