Pre Screening For Disabilities And Genetic Enhancement

Though the use of pre-natal hereditary screening is as of now utilized as a part of high-hazard pregnancies for recognition of illness, for example, Down syndrome and Huntington 's chorea (Ridley 55, 98). As researchers decide the qualities for extra hereditary conditions, screening of incipient organisms will give more data to potential biological parents, former to their offspring has advanced. On the off chance that a screened embryo were found to convey qualities for a specific malady or inability, its guardians may specifically prematurely end it. This gives parents a choice of raising a child with a disability or back out if they don’t have the means to support the child financially, physically, emotionally or mentally. This is a good thing despite what others say because if a child is born with a disability in to family that doesn’t have the means to support it, it is unfair to all parties

When parents know the fetus is “special”, they may be chosen to terminate the pregnancy. Thus, in general prenatal screening helps to detect congenital disabilities but is also thought to be the 'remedy' selective abortion (Seller, 1976).

Many individuals fail to understand the sheer magnitude of bloodshed, tribulation, and despair legalized abortion has initiated into the human experience – both in the United States and worldwide. Far more human lives have been violently ended by this immoral decision than any other war or genocide in history. It is one of the most controversial issues in today’s society. Abortion is the intentional decision to murder a human fetus by chemical, medical or surgical procedures. Those who support the rights of abortion argue that women should be able to decide what can be done to their bodies, yet the unborn baby inside a woman is a living being, and terminating that pregnancy is the equivalent of murder. These innocent children should not be held responsible for your mistakes. Don’t terminate pregnancy now, because you may not have children in the future at all.

Leon Kass argues that genetic abortion threatens the moral equality of all human beings, not just those with genetic deficiencies. One reason why he believes this is because the baby is an innocent human being that has the right to life and as a parent you eligibly is to not cause their child harm. Abortion according to Kass is a moral issue not just for genetic deficiencies but also for all children that may be aborted. However, the flip side of this argument is that the parents may have significant reasons to abort their child.

A Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) is a test that “allows future parents to detect genetic defects that cause inherited disease in human embryos before they are implanted.” One of the most ethical questions that one might ask before considering the PGD is whether the benefits of genetic knowledge outweigh harmful effects that occur to the embryo? Is it really worth manipulating embryos genes in order to achieve the desire of the parents? Often times we have to take into considerations the risk and benefits of each situation. I believe that the PGD test should be only be done to detect genetic defects, but it should not be used to manipulate genes in order to make what to them is a “perfect” child. As stated in our text, “ In the united Kingdom alteration of an embryos genes, even for gene therapy or cloning embryos is illegal.” By manipulating genes its like going against Gods wishes. In the eyes of God every person that comes into this world is equally seen as a human being because they are all created in “ the image of God.” In this case the parents should not be allowed to manipulate the genes of their unborn child just to accommodate to their

A moral justification for genetic treatment is only as accurate as the justification of disease. In the realms of objective science and the use of genetic testing, Kitcher argues that the basis for terminating a pregnancy due to a severe syndrome can also lead to the basis for termination due to an undesired sex or possibly even homosexuality. Ultimately, Kitcher supports only a minimalist approach to the use of

Darnovsky suggests that although many genetic scientists support germline engineering because it can potentially resist transfer of hereditary mutations, these scientists fail to mention that preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) does the same effect in allowing a technician to screen embryos for traces of diseases and simply deliver any non-infected embryos to the mother’s body. In conjunction, Darnovsky endorses the alternative of prenatal screening with the option of abortion to avoid the use of in vitro fertilization. Cohan, however, observes that it would dubious for the Court to restrict a woman’s reproductive rights to use germline technology while people are already using reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, and surrogacy. He asserts that the right to use these reproductive technologies is protected by law, and implies that it would be hypocritical for the government to restrict use of germline technology while these other reproductive technologies are still in effect.

Gina Kolata’s article, Ethics Questions Arise as Genetic Testing of Embryos Increases (2014), explains that as the increase of the testing of embryos for parents to choose whether or not to have children has also brought its ethical questions in the light. Kolata uses the Kalinskys case, a family in the article, and how their neurological disease, Gerstmann-Straussler-Schinker (GSS), has raised questions for ethicists who have looked into the case. Kolata’s purpose in writing this article is to inform the audience on the growing topic of embryo testing and also the ethical question that also accompany in order to have the audience to develop a personal view on the issue. Given how the author explains the technical terms used within the article, Kolata is writing to an audience that is not fully aware of genetic testing.

Sterilization of the developmentally disabled or the mentally retarded is an issue that has long been debated in America. Mental retardation is defined as the inability to learn normally and develop mentally. Traditionally in America if a mentally retarded person was born to a family, that family had 2 choices- take care of the child at home, or it was strongly recommended that the child was sent to a state run institution or hospital. The state institution was where this person would spend his or her entire life. Unfortunately these hospitals were often huge warehouses of people with disabilities, or mental illnesses. These hospitals offered no contact with the

This brings about many ethical questions and moral concerns. The practice that likely incites the most controversy in selective abortion is sex selective reduction. As technology has advanced, the availability of ultrasound technology has provided practitioners with the ability to identify many fetal characteristics, one of which is gender (Higgins, 2016). Sex-selective reduction mirrors the practice of so called “gendercide” that occurs in countries such as China and India. In these countries sex selective abortion is used to create a population that is predominantly male. To American’s these methods may seem inhumane, and there are many organizations in the US and around the world attempting to stop gender specific abortion. What many Americans probably do not realize is these practices occur in the United States as well, and they have for a long time. While these methods are considered legal in the United States, the ethical implications of aborting fetuses based on sex creates an entirely new concern. The practice of selective abortion in general has created a number of ethical questions for society, and those practicing in the medical

But she also makes mentioned if this is the case then babies are innocent human beings which makes it wrong to kill a fetus/baby. The argument is then made that all humans have consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, the ability to communicate as well as express self-awareness. The disagreement then follows that the infant cannot do most of these things so therefore the baby is not a human which I think is incorrect. This then leads to my argument about why aborting a special needs fetus is wrong. As mentioned in our class discussions, prenatal testing has led to an increase in abortions of children with disabilities. Many of these children are wanted and expected. Their parents are making plans for a happy life, but when their child is diagnosed with a potential disability such as Down syndrome or cystic fibrosis, many of these parents decide to terminate and try again. What’s sad is that with many of these cases, it is the doctor who pressures the parents into having an abortion. These parents aren’t given all of the facts, and they are not told what resources that are available to help them to make their growing child life better while growing up. Rather than using new scientific and proven information to inform, doctors are using it to practice eugenics. According to Genetic Generations website eugenics has its pros and cons. But Eugenics is a movement that is aimed at improving the genetic composition of the human race. Historically, eugenicists advocated selective breeding to achieve these goals. And now it has become the expected way to handle the situation. Accepting human differences is what the United States of America was founded on. Yet the most innocent, the weakest among us are being denied the most fundamental of rights, the right to live. Such cases as these would not make modern

Consequently, it’s no surprise that my group and I had many different views. Our first discussion was about the couple that had dwarfism. For their own discretion I will label them Group member A and Group member B. Group member A agreed with the couple’s decision to abort the baby who would be homozygous for the gene but, found an issue with aborting the healthy fetus. “ It doesn’t seem right, they could just give it up for adoption,” he claimed. Group member B argued that trying to have a child with dwarfism presented an issue with things such as, “the quality of life”. I argued that the couple may want a child who is similar to them for health and disciplining reasons. Also, I suggested that they may not be comfortable raising a child who is significantly different from them. My group could not seem to find common ground with this issue however, we agreed unanimously when it came to the case of paternity and the case about colon cancer . All of us agreed that since the existing child has CF the male should be notified that he is not the biological father. However, we also agreed that this should be discussed privately with the mother then the father. The other case was unanimous because we felt that it was a safety issue, neglecting to tell the other family members would be putting their health in jeopardy. On the

With increasing developments in biotechnology there are now more choices than ever for prospective parents when they decide to start a family. This induces demand for philosophers and ethicists to analyze the moral pertinence of such practices around the world for a wide range of situations. In this paper, I will present the arguments of Dena Davis against sex selective techniques and the subsequent arguments by Sophia Wong that link sex selection and disability de-selection. I will subsequently evaluate Wong’s extension and its viability within the argument established by Davis and defend my conclusion that it is indeed comparable and equivalent arguments due to the congruence of gender and disability expectations in the United States.

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

Typically, the issue of abortion in the United States has been one that has courted controversy and created a public, political, and moral divide. While some feel that abortion should be illegal, others feel it should be restricted. Still others feel it should be legal and freely accessed. Although there are many ethical phases which originate from the application of reproduction control in women’s health, the main issues that raise ethical problems following the development of assisted reproduction techniques are: the right to procreate or reproduce. Induce abortion raises ethical issues related to the rights of women versus the rights