Should Parents Be Allowed To Choose The Sex Of Their Baby

The author is the associate editor of The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology and Society. In which, is the area of the news site that cover all technological advances and controversies on new sciences. The article cover the opinions of conservatives and progressives alike on the use engineering a child before or after birth. Although, the possibilities are endless and the benefits to humanity are countless such as, curing diseases, inherited genetics; they are filled with risks. Numerous scientists, ethicists, and other important members are present at this meeting, but exclude members with strong moral standards to have a less biased opinions. Nevertheless, ethics are not unconsidered, which is why there is such a strong force that holds

Bitzer stated that exigence, which was capable of modification by way of discourse was needed (Herrick, 2016). As IVG research raises many ethical questions, its use in human analysis has been delayed. Questions of morality are raised concerning whether same sex couples should be able to procreate biologically, as well as whether the ability to choose genetic traits for offspring would put couples who can afford the treatment method at an unfair advantage over individuals who cannot afford such methods. Additionally, the question rises of whether the embryos that are created but not used in the procreation should be destroyed, donated, or frozen (Bourne, Douglas, & Savulescu, 2012). As these questions are based on morality and ethics, as opposed to statistics and data, they can be resolved through rhetorical dialogue and

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.

As we stand in the world today, we as humans have never been more technologically advanced or scientifically intelligent. We have the ability to explore outer space and the depths of the oceans. We are even in the process of developing organs using 3D printing technology. But there is a limit to the extent of advancements that humankind can reach before some begin to pose dangers to humanity or become unethical. Currently, technology is being developed to expand the procedure of in vitro fertilization to genetically modify embryos. The products of this engineering are commonly known as “designer babies”. This technology, when fully developed, would grant parents the opportunity to select against possibly life threatening or altering conditions such as cystic fibrosis, schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s. Using this technology, parents would also be able to make extensive selections regarding their baby’s gender, physical characteristics, and possibly even personality traits and talents. While it is positive advancement to be able to select against life-threatening diseases, the creation of an a-la-carte baby is unethical and crosses the line between positive sociological developments and immoral manipulations of nature for many reasons.

The first child to ever be from using test tube techniques happened in the late 1970’s. Although many have applauded this new type of technology, there is an ethical issue on whether or not embryos should be created in test-tube knowing that fact that many are not implanted and have human development. “Octo-Mom” is a classic case that may have changed many people’s perception when it comes to in-vitro fertilization. Many felt that it was ethically wrong for her doctor to conduct that type of procedure to a woman who will not have the ability to provide adequate care for the well-being of her children who may have health issues.

In my last response to discussion question 8, in chapter 7, I said I am one who acts more upon my commonsense. I place myself and judge moral theories more as what a utilitarian would do. I feel that some of your decisions and actions should be based on what produces the best over evil, everyone considered. As I read the case study, Aborting Daughters, I instantly answer the question, “Do you think sex-selection abortions are morally permissible?” No, I do not think they are morally permissible. Not so much because of the utilitarian’s belief, which I will get into later, but because I do think a fetus is a person. And like Kantians who believe fetuses are persons, the fetus has all the rights and due all the respect that any other person has. To abort that fetus because it’s a girl (or a boy) does not give any rights to the fetus.

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

There are people around the world trying to have children right now, that cannot and need to use services like reproductive technology to even have the chance of a little one in their future. NRTs are one thing that can help, and it is moving forward with the advancements in technology and science. With this huge advancement in technology and science, many people are starting to question if these procedures are ethical. There are four principles of ethics. These principles are autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Applying these principles of ethics to new reproductive technologies can

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.

It reflects the values of a parent wanting the best for the child and also actively seeking out information to make a good decision rather than remaining willfully ignorant in the advent of new technology. In addition, well-being in human society is boosted. However, Savulescu has packaged sex selection into his very broad argument and made serious oversights.

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) marks a great step forward in medical technology, and Australia is a leader in the field. IVF is now a popular procedure for couples who are infertile or are having trouble conceiving. However, it raises ethical, moral and legal issues including the rights of an individual, property rights, the definition of human life, scientific experimentation versus a potential human life, religion, costs, and community, medical and taxpayer’s rights.

New technological advances and scientific methods continue to change the course of nature. One of the current controversial advances in science and technology is the use of genetically modified embryos in which the study exceeds stem cell research. Scientists have begun planning for research involving human embryos in the genetic modification field. Many technological developments are responsible for improving our living standards and even saving lives, but often such accomplishments have troubling cultural and moral ramifications (Reagan, 2015). We are already beyond the days in which virtually the only procreative option was for a man and a woman to conceive the old-fashioned way (Reagan, 2015). Genetic modification of human embryos can be perceived as a positive evolution in the medical process yet it is surrounded by controversy due to ethical processes. Because this form of genetic modification could affect later born children and their offspring, the protection of human subjects should be a priority in decisions about whether to proceed with such research (Dresser, 2004). The term Human Genetic Engineering was originally made public in 1970. During this time there were several methods biologists began to devise in order to better identify or isolate clone genes for manipulation in several species or mutating them in humans.

The principles of ethics can assist in finding a middle ground on reproductive technologies by forcing the healthcare provider to consider first the patient and their well-being above all else, yet keeping in consideration the benefits and morality of the care they are giving. More often than not, there are more than two sides to every argument, especially when it comes to the latest reproductive technologies. “To obtain justifiable resolutions of these

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.

IVF raises many of these difficult moral issues. If the above conceptions about the nature of ethics were correct, however, discussion of these issues would either be futile (because morality is a matter of personal choice or opinion) or superfluous (because morality is what a divine or secular authority says it is) (Walters 23). In this paper, I want to suggest that it is not only possible, but also necessary to inquire into the ethics of such practices as IVF because the fact that we can do something does not mean that we ought to do it.