Is It Ethical To Discard A Savior Sibling Child?

4. The final argument should be the strongest and the one backed up the most. It should be based not only on your personal views, as they could be a bit skewed, but also on the reader’s point of view.

Luke 15:11-32 is one of the most famous parables in the Bible. It is the parable of the prodigal son. This parable is about a son who runs away with his inheritance, wastes all of it, and then comes back home to his father’s open arms. Tim Keller goes more in depth into this parable with his book The Prodigal God. In this book, Keller compares the two sons’ sins, “two brothers, each of whom represents a different way to be alienated from God, and a different way to seek acceptance into the Kingdom of heaven” (9). Throughout the book, comparisons can be made between the younger brother’s sin and the older brother’s sin. The younger brother was selfish and

There have been technological advancements in the recent years, and the majority of countries in the world has witnessed this. One of the most interesting advancements in the biomedical sector has been the invention of designer babies. Designer babies refer to a wide range of reproductive techniques such as replacing versions of genes linked to certain diseases and enhancing certain attributes in a baby. These adjustments, however, are not ethically right since God’s work is termed to be perfect.

Don Marquis agrees with anti-abortionists that abortion is morally wrong, but finds that they are not making the right arguments to justify this. There is much debate over what comprises a human being or when a fetus becomes a person, and if only a human life is of great value, so I will use the general term “X” to present Marquis’s overall argument. If X has a future like ours which has great value, then depriving X of that future is immoral. X has a future like ours, thereby making it immoral to kill X. Obviously, this is a broad argument defending the anti-abortionist viewpoint. In this case, X is a fetus, so the argument becomes much more specific. If a fetus has a future like ours which has great value, depriving a fetus of this future is morally wrong. A fetus has a future like ours, so killing the fetus is morally wrong.

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.

“When you deny me a means to end my unwanted pregnancy, you deny me the opportunity to participate in society in the way that my brother or husband can. Better nurseries, better financial support can mitigate some of the consequences of motherhood—but nothing can mitigate the impact of pregnancy itself, which is why women need the means to end it” mentions

However, I believe that in order for saviour siblings to live happily, it is vitally important for them to receive support from their parents and family. They need to understand that if their sibling did die, it would not be their fault and they need to feel loved by their parents. I also think that it is important when creating saviour siblings to ensure that the embryos are being selected purely for being a genetic match to the sick child and free from any genetic diseases. Selecting embryos for medical reasons is very different to selecting them purely because you want them to be a girl or a boy but in order to ensure that saviour siblings do not become designer babies it is important to ensure that there is real need and a purely medical reason to choose the

Warren and Thomson might even counter some of my arguments too. They might explain that they might possess the DNA for the next Rockefeller or Gates, but they also might have the potential for the next evil criminal like Hitler and because the child won’t be raised properly the chances are more likely that they turn out evil rather than good. Therefore, by allowing the parents to commit an abortion, society would be safer and crime rate would go down. I also, counter that argument by saying that if this were the case then the police would get to them and if it turns out to be the next Gates society benefits from them anyhow.

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

“A certain person’s religious, economic, political, and scientific viewpoint of a situation significantly influences what his or her moral beliefs about designer babies are. Those who are highly influenced by religious teachings find the technology used by designer babies to be humans attempting to “play god”, while from an economic standpoint the inequality that would develop between the rich and poor from the expenses of using the CRISPR-cas9 system is inevitably unethical. Yet, from ethical beliefs that are developed from a political perspective, the opinion was split. Those from a conservative standpoint saw designer babies as immoral when considering the traditional rights a child has, but those from a liberal viewpoint brought into the

The following essay will examine the morality of abortion with specific reference to the writings of Don Marquis, Judith Jarvis Thompson, Peter Singer and Mary Anne Warren. I will begin by assessing the strength of the argument provided by Marquis which claims that abortion is impermissible because it deprives a being of a potential “future like ours,” and then go on to consider the writings of Singer, Thomson and Warren to both refute Marquis claims and support my assertion that abortion is morally permissible primarily because of the threat to the freedom and bodily autonomy of women extending the right to life to a foetus in utero would pose.

When I was younger my brothers and I would fight over the attention and gratitude of my parents. From reading the Stories of brothers in the Bible I have discovered that brothers have been fighting ever since the beginning of time. Through the stories of Cain and Abel, and Jacob and Esau I have determined that Brothers stories are one of childhood ignorance and desire to obtain everything. Once adolescence has turned to adulthood, brothers seem to reform there ways toward each other due to the realization that you don’t need to have everything to obtain happiness.

By examining the genetic makeup of the fetus, inducing changes in his or her embryonic stem cells could modify the genes. Studies show that most parents want only the best for their child and by enhancing his or her genes allows the child to be the best. From the perspective of a child genetically modified, this threatens his or her freedom of action. Whether the child succeeds in life is not wholly determined by his or her efforts to do well, but determined by decisions made by parents before birth. No longer able to accept responsibility for the things the child does, it is speculated that parents will no longer view their children as something they are obligated to raise and love. Instead, the parents would see their child almost like a mere consumer product that they have high expectations for before they buy it. The freedom of action a child has would be destroyed through a parent’s high expectations.

Kant claims that the human should “act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means”. Critics of savior sibling have argued that the procedure violates this concept. They argue that there is something fundamentally wrong with parents having children for the wrong reasons. In the case of a savior sibling, the parents are acting unethically by having a child for the purpose of saving the life of a second child and not for the sake of the child being born. This raises concern for the welfare of the child being created. One must agree that conceiving a child can be wrong or done for the wrong reasons. Thus, first, it must be firmly established that the creation of a savior sibling would be a wrong reason because the child will solely be treated as a means.

3. Is it right to have a second child for the sole purpose of using that child’s genetic material to cure an existing child?