Susan Martha Kahn : An Imperative Religious Duty

Eggs and sperm are stored in thousands of racks, waiting to be fertilized, ““These,” he waved his hand, “are the incubators.” And opening an insulated door he showed them racks upon racks of number test-tubes. “The week’s supply of ova.”” (16) In fertility clinics today, test-tube babies have become normality, in vitro fertilization has contributed to over 5 million births. Yet, just because science has found its way into procreation in today’s society, this does not mean it gives the government more control. It is ultimately the parents’ choice whether or not to have an IVF, something that more and more people have decided to do. People can start to choose whether or not they want certain characteristics to appear in their child, a choice that the government can never take away from them. After being stored, the next task of fertilization begins, “”This hive of industry,” as the Director was fond of calling it. […] Under the microscopes, their long tails furiously lashing, spermatozoa were burrowing head first into eggs.” (136). Though the task of fertilization mirrors the process seen today, it will never be kept in such an orderly fashion of government control as seen in the novel. The novel describes thousands upon thousands of fertilizations in a single week, as the government

Often condemned as one of the primary societal problems of today, non-marital childbirth has been the subject of many sociologist’s explorations in an attempt to understand its rapid increase and growth in desirability. In their book Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage, Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas delve into the underlying reasons for the increase in non-martial child bearing, especially among women in low-socioeconomic communities. Through their two-and-a-half-year study, in which they conducted by interviewing over one hundred single mothers living in Philadelphia and Camden, Edin and Kefalas strove to understand why poor, single women were purposefully getting pregnant. Nearly eight years after Promises

Seeks Pity for Teenage Mothers and Abstinent Couples,” is that the woman’s inability to be decisive in whether or not she will assume the role of motherhood is symbolic of slavery. Furthermore, Sanger maintains that denying women the freedom of choice essentially impedes their constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These assertions are substantiated through a series of letters that are written to Sanger by mothers who are overwhelmed with anguish and dismay due to their prominent rate of unplanned pregnancies and the complications that ensue as a result. The common thread indicated in all of the letters is the pursuit of relief in the form of prevention. The series of correspondences also addresses the invariable plight of poverty, illness, fear, physiological defects, sexual servitude, and the lack of social enterprise, which all seem to be exacerbated by the immense number of unplanned pregnancies. Sanger subscribes to the belief that the woman’s right to control her body is the foundation of her human rights; and the freedom of choice is the stimulus to safer, healthier and happier lives. One writer discloses her struggle to efficiently care for her eight children on her husband’s minimal income of $1.oo per day. Her failure to adequately nurture her eight children and ensure their normal development is created by her inability to work outside of the home to

In the twentieth century, there was much debate on women’s public sexual relationship versus her private sexual relationship. The American society only believed in pure sex, and premarital sex was viewed as a sin. From a feminist’s point of view, there should be no pressure on the woman to reproduce according to the husband’s wishes. The feminists at the time “... were assured that they were sexual beings, but their sexuality was defined by male standards” (341-342). Also, certain situations did not provide the atmosphere necessary to raise a baby.

The right to have children is understood in very different ways and people’s ethics and values are put to the test each and everyday when they find out they not only must take care of themselves but the lives of another human being. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted this statement regarding the right to bear children “men and women of full age, without any limitations to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and found a family”[1]. This concept has been viewed in multiple ways and according to ethical theorists; they agree that no rights are absolute. However, it is said that for women at least, there is a fundamental privilege to have children. The right to

Women no longer wanted to have unwanted babies, or be “tied down”. They no longer felt that their only calling in life was to be a mother, and if it was they wanted to choose when they were going to be mothers. “Margaret Sanger, a New York nurse, led a movement to enable women to control their pregnancies with her American Birth Control League. This let women explore their sexuality without having to concern themselves with unwanted babies” (Bowles, 2011).

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

This article discusses the first two test tube babies meeting each other at a fertility conference. Through this, it displays how two of the first humans produced by this technology can bond over something such as their specialized births and what "life growing up in the spotlight has been like" (Simpson). The recognition of this event as a medical breakthrough helps to portray the importance of further advancement within this technology. As time continues so does the need to keep up with the new and upcoming technologies, and this article shows the importance of furthering the technology of IVF. The online article analyzed for the resolution of this topic was a book review in Louise Brown's autobiography. The review chose to focus on analyzing the parents of the first test tube baby opposed to the birth itself. This article states the negative effects IVF has had on the world and how it coincides with religion and moral beliefs. The review is very clearly against Louise Brown and what she has to say about the advancement that was her birth. Throughout the review, the author fails to include a counter argument for their

In traditional societies, the childless woman was marked in some sense as having failed in satisfying a fundamental female function—bearing children. She may have been pitied or scorned—or even treated with consolation by fecund contemporaries—but she remained nonetheless an ‘outsider,’ a woman who, for whatever reason,

The modern world is in the midst of reconstructing gender roles; debates about contraception, reproductive freedom, and female inequality are contentious and common. The majority now challenges the long established assertion that women’s bodies are the eminent domain of patriarchal control. In the past, a woman’s inability to control her reproductive choices could come with ruinous consequences. Proponents of patriarchal control argue against reproductive independence with rhetoric from religious texts and with anecdotes of ‘better days,’ when women were subservient. Often, literature about childbearing fails to acknowledge the possibility of women being uninterested in fulfilling the role of motherhood.

Rather, Rachels opposes both the idea parenthood as well as accusing parents of their misjudgments.(Rachels, 572) This shows the awareness that Rachels has in objectively challenging the current stance that couples must have a child together. Altogether, Rachels has provided a strong paper that initially seems very convincing, but when taking a deeper look, one finds that there are several flaws in his argument.

Approximately a hundred years later, in the 1960s, women started recognizing how the state was controlling their bodies by either forcing them to stay pregnant or face unsafe methods in order to remove the embryo. As a result, several women’s

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.

Assisted reproductive technologies is “any fertilization consisting of tampering with of gametes/ embryos outside the female body and then putting the gametes/embryos into the female body.” (Donchin 11) These procedures offers a way for several of families who have spent countless time attempting to have a child of their own, but have drained all other possibilities, to do so. The new advancement in reproductive technologies give significant aid to couples who are unable to reproduce, and make many new reproductive arrangements possible. The different options available for adults considering childrearing in unusual ways under new reproductive methods are two-party and third-party assisted reproduction. Assisted reproduction can raise some ethical

Laws are legislated and enforced for the mere purpose of protecting all individuals in a society by stating what is and what is not acceptable behavior. Though it is impossible for these legislative decisions to please every single individual in a society, these governs are passed in morality of the thousands of elected parties in charge. Commercial surrogacy is a current complex issue that evokes strong moralistic response. Commercial surrogacy takes away the childbearing element in the reproductive period for individuals looking to have or extend a family. It has opened the doors for many who cannot bear children of their own though this behavior has also raised many concerns about the appropriate scope of the market. This “method for acquiring children” is more commonly objected because the children and women’s reproductive ability are being treated as a commodity. Summed up through Elizabeth S. Anderson’s article, “Is Women’s Labor a Commodity?” children are buyer durables and women are baby factories (Anderson 82). Anderson communicates commercial surrogacy children as commodities stating how this “market” that these children are born into expresses attitude that endorses market norms as opposed to ‘norms of parental love”(Anderson 76). Anderson focuses her paper towards the manipulation, alienation, and exploitation of women that commodifies women’s reproductive capacities. Through Anderson’s argument and her perceptive relations of this market to alienation,