Opposing Arguments Of Dena Davis Genetic Dilemmas

In this short video and article on the topic of gendercide, reporter Elizabeth Vargas travels to India to found out from the people of India personally why there is such a shortage of females. She discovered that although aborting a fetus of a female child is illegal because of the shortage of females, families still continue to abort them because they don't want the burden that the baby girls brings. Vargas also discovered that illegal sex determination clinics can be found just about on every street. Men and their families also the wives to have sex determination tests and abort the baby if it’s female.

Technology’s changes and developments over the course of history provide today’s generation with many exquisite tools and resources. Due to technological developments such as ultrasounds, parents are now able to know the gender of their baby months before he or she is born. However, recent advancements have provided parents with another opportunity: gender selection. It is now possible for people to select what gender their child will be. Though there may be some instances in which gender selection seems reasonable, altering the gender of a baby can begin a dangerous pathway for discrimination, gender imbalance, and parental acceptance.

Each day, over one-hundred and eighteen million babies are born worldwide. According to the biological sex binary male and female, every infant has the possibility of being born with sex chromosomes female (XX) and male (XY), which causes differences in their biological anatomies. There are also individuals with disorders of sex development or more commonly referred to as being intersex. Intersex is an umbrella term for people whose sexual or reproductive anatomies, sex hormones, or sex chromosomes just do not fall neatly into the definitions of male and female. Examples of this disorder could include ambiguous genitalia, androgen sensitivity, or abnormalities with how the rest of the body responds to sex hormones. The majority of cultures around the globe give merit to and recognize the differences in biological sex (male/female binary), what roles they have played in their traditions/histories, and their current position in framing politics or societal structures. Some Non-Western countries such as China, India, Taiwan, and Pakistan, include cultures that exhibit a strong sex-preference, or more specifically son-preference. More than simply preferring the births of sons to daughters, son preference develops from instances of gender inequality where outside parties often question basic human rights. Non-Western

Prenatal screening itself is a moment that holds uncertainty and can change the lives of those involved. . The chance of having a boy or girl seems to be the least of worries of expectant parents. Having a child with disability has been stigmatized to be a much bigger issue that is considered a “problem” in society. Even with issues surrounding prenatal screening, and it being ethical or “the right thing to do,” the worries of people with disabilities about how prenatal screening is handled can be answered. Tom Shakespeare references in, Solving the Disability Problem Whose Responsibility? how “scientific progress has created a situation in which childhood disability has moved from being considered a random chance or act of God, to something which can often be anticipated, and thus prevented” (Shakespeare 2005). Before science could tell us the gender of our future children, and any other problem that may entail, it was up to chance and choice whether one would follow through with complete pregnancy. With technology and advances in prenatal screening, anticipation is removed, predominantly due to the fear of having to raise a child with a disability. In contrast to negative and opposing views, Madeo et. al mentioned Lardy et. al’s study, which showed that those who suffer from a disability have the ability to maintain, “friendships, hold jobs, and go to school” (Madeo et. al 2010, 1778). Even with attitudes, which dishearten the lives of the

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.

When one chooses to write on a matter that seems to have been laid to rest decades ago their burden extensively lies not in trying to argue for their position, rather in showing the relevance of their position. This paper attempts to do both of these things when it comes to non-consensual sterilizations of women, specifically disabled women. A practice prominent in the 20th century, this paper examines coerced sterilizations from a feminist care ethics perspective and ultimately concludes that paternalistic arguments for this practice are in fact eugenic arguments, and thus renders coerced tubal litigations as unethical. Although neo-eugenics is starting to gain a number of followers for its genetic benefits, this is but a misconception of

In the United States during the 1920’s, the welfare of society was in jeopardy due to the number of feebleminded. With such a high number, the risk that these undesired genes would be passed on to future generations of offspring was a leading concern for scientific figures of the time. Whether or not this statement was actually the case, it was widely believed at the time. It was felt that the only logical way to ensure a better future for the rest of society was to segregate this class of impaired citizens apart from others. Sterilization, which was supported by many, became the best known solution to this rising problem during this time period (Cynkar 1981). Buck vs Bell is an example of the fight against sterilization laws that ultimately made its way to the United States Supreme Court. Many states had eugenic laws that were in force long before the Supreme Court case, but revisions were made after the ruling of Buck vs. Bell (Nourse 2016). Historically, this court case rested on many issues that were seen as acceptable at the time, but by today’s standards are considered consciously wrong. The majority opinion regarding the legalization for sterilization from the iconic court case Buck vs. Bell still remains in effect today, but the misrepresentation of constitutional rights and ethical questions posed by this case are altogether still a question that remains up for debate. Unfortunately for Carrie Buck, and many like her, the consequences are and will remain

This article title reflects information on the past history of eugenics along with some of its current uses and advancements; both restricted and unrestricted are briefly reviewed. Moral, Ethical, Civil and Constitutional debates regarding the topic, along with a broad spectrum variety of court cases are pointedly addressed offering a nice concentrated overview on the topic of eugenics.

Shortly after the turn-of-the-century, nearly two-thirds of states in America enacted laws that required sterilization of various criminals, mentally ill, epileptics, alcoholics, and sufferers of poverty (Largent, 2011). All of this effort was exerted to prevent undesirable children from being born. It was justified by the assumption that unfit people aren’t capable of adequate parenting; therefore their offspring would be a financial burden on society. Strong ideals and dogma were the weapons chosen by eugenicists to get involuntary sterilization legalized.

open up the door to more human genetic engineering that could further the agenda of

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.

These "science"-based eugenic influences break through the lines of science in to the world of politics, promulgating anti-humanistic views of poor women of colour in the form of legislation fraught with bigotry and baseless generalizations. This political view flows through the judicial system, as courts apply eugenic philosophies in determining who should be sterilized and for what reasons.

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 WHO states that there are three core motivations for engaging in sex determination and sex selection which include “medical reasons such as preventing the birth of children affected or at risk of X-linked disorders; family balancing reasons where couples choose to have a child of one sex because they already have one or more children of the other sex; and gender preference reason often in favor of male offspring stemming from cultural, social, and economic bias in favor of male children and as a result of policies requiring couples to limit reproduction to one child, as in China.” In countries such as India and China, it is apparent that women can be harmed by sex selection

If you could choose what characteristics your baby would have, would you even consider giving him or her a disability? With technologies today, you can now tell if your child is going to be born with a disability (Bradfield). With advancements in reproductive technology, this question is now a serious consideration for many aspiring parents because enhancements are available to mitigate disabilities in the pursuit of perfection (Verlinsky). When thinking about this question, many other questions arise. For example, what qualifies something to be considered a disability? I am going to discuss the ethics of in vitro fertilization, why I do not see in vitro fertilization as unethical, the ethics of designing your baby against disabilities, and why I think it is not morally wrong to design your baby.