Since the end of the Second World War, the world has sought to re-address the issues of Human Dignity. This is through addressing this notion on what it means to act like an ethical human being in society.
On the contemporary moral issue of savior siblings, addressing the concept of human dignity can be quite gray. This is primarily because the savior sibling is conceived through the use of the Therapeutic reproductive technology. Therapeutic reproductive technology ensures that the child is a suitable match for the sick siblings. This is so that the savior sibling is able to donate blood, bone marrow and other live saving cells and organs (like a kidney) to the sick sibling.
On one hand of the spectrum, the idea of conceiving a savior sibling
…show more content…
This is the result of the post-scientific revolution, which at times science commodifies the dignity of a human person. Primarily, because of the shift from people being seen as members of the human species. From people to be seen as products that are to be used to a means to an end. This notion of human dignity falls under the quadrants, 1A and 1B. These two quadrants argue that human dignity is inherent primarily because people are members of the human species (1A). Plus, in the 1B perspective, the savior sibling’s dignity should be upheld as the child is multidimensional. Therefore, regardless of the number of procedures, the savior sibling has to preserve the life of the sick sibling. The child should always be seen as being a member of the human species as they possess human capacities. Thus can be concluded for the fertilized embryos that are compromised during the Therapeutic reproductive technology procedure.
To conclude, when arguing the case of human dignity using the four quadrant framework on the two key perspectives on the issue of savior siblings can be quite gray. Thus is because the conception of a savior sibling can be considered on a 2B perspective both as upholding human dignity and abusing human life (for the savior child). In the other argument focuses on quadrant 1A and 1B. Focusing on the idea
Thomson provides the example of being hooked up for nine months to provide dialysis to an ailing violinist to expose how a fetus’s right to life does not supersede a mother’s right to make medical decisions about her body (48-49). I find that this thought experiment especially helpful in understanding how even though a fetus does have a right to life, because the continuation of their life hinges on the consent of their mother to use her body, it falls to the mother to choose whether or not to allow the fetus to develop to term.
Therapeutic cloning is the process whereby parts of a human body are grown independently from a body from STEM cells collected from embryos for the purpose of using these parts to replace dysfunctional ones in living humans. Therapeutic Cloning is an important contemporary issue as the technology required to conduct Therapeutic Cloning is coming, with cloning having been successfully conducted on Dolly the sheep. This process is controversial as in the process of collecting STEM cells from an embryo, the embryo will be killed. Many groups, institutions and religions see this as completely unacceptable, as they see the embryo as a human life. Whereas other groups believe that this is acceptable as they do not believe that the embryo is a human life, as well as the fact that this process will greatly benefit a large number of people. In this essay I will compare the view of Christianity who are against Therapeutic Cloning with Utilitarianism who are in favour of Therapeutic Cloning.
The fight against diseases, especially these serious diseases causing untold suffering for many people, must be continuous and heroic. Fetal tissue use has a promising hope for people in their old age to be and live more sustainable. Even though fetal research does not hold the certainty but only a possibility of cures for such diseases, such possibilities should be realized if one has the resources and there is no moral impediment to doing so. But that remains the question. Is there a moral impediment to such research? ...
In discussing whether God must create the best world that he can, Robert M. Adams raises the following hypothetical (Adams 1972, 326). Imagine a drug exists which is known to cause severe intellectual disability in any children conceived by a couple who takes it. If a couple desires to raise an intellectually disabled child, takes the drug, and conceives such a child, the challenge is to explain what, if anything, they have done wrong. The problem illustrated by this hypothetical is known as the “non-identity” problem (Benatar 2006, 114). The solution presented by Adams is that the parents have violated the following principle: “It is wrong for human beings to cause, knowingly and voluntarily, the procreation of an offspring of human parents which is notably deficient, by comparison with normal human beings, in mental or physical capacity” (Adams 1972, 330). After discussing whether someone is harmed by the parents’ action, this paper will build on the solution presented by Adams by suggesting two ways of understanding why the couple’s action was wrong – one utilitarian, and one virtue based.
The characterization and storyline are standards that should be met when releasing a drama film, but equally important is the script. Jamal Hill, writer of Brotherly Love, wrote a script with structure. When it comes to writing a movie, or anything else for that matter, the structure in which you place your characters, events, reactions and outcomes should be organized in such a way that a solid plot is formed. Hill arranged his events in a chronological order to evoke the ideal emotional appeal from his audience. He did that when he started the movie off with June Taylor relentlessly killing four men in cold blood and ending it with Sergio making to the NBA league.
The argument for the moral rights of the unborn child against abortion still holds true because the child cannot be viewed as a virus that abortion presents a cure because the rights of a fetus is reserves in its identity as a member of the Homo sapien community. Therefore, any acts against an unborn child( or fetus), although presently legal, should be considered as morally unjust, which is equal to the act of murder because what is killed in an abortion is not simply, a housing of organ but a human being equal to any other. Furthermore, the idea of justifying an abortion, which essentially should be viewed as the forceful and unnatural death, of an unborn child based on the assumption that he or she cannot express thoughts, or desires therefore rendering their members to full moral rights . Thus, it negates the feeling of pain and hardships that are experience by a fetus as it is forcefully yank out the worm of his
The word abortion brings out a variety of attitudes & perceptions amongst people. The topic is surrounded by emotion and empathy, which often creates a divide, those who view abortion as permissible and those who do not. In “Bioethics Before Birth," Tooley and Marquis provide their arguments on abortion. Their arguments share some similarities but their viewpoints and delivery set them apart. I will evaluate and compare the differences and similarities in their arguments.
With the increased rate of integrating In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), there has been a steep inclination within the associated needs of specifications. Observably, the development of babies using scientific measures was initially formulated and specified for developing the diverse range of development associated with the same (Turriziani, 2014). However, these developments are noted to be creating an adverse impact on the natural course of events and subsequently, resulting with an adverse impact on the natural process of the development of babies. The initial integrations within the system of IVF for developing babies have further been initiated with the effective use of science to develop a healthy baby. Hence, the use of such progressions can be argued as not hampering the ethical needs associated with the same. Conversely, the initial progression within the same and the changes in the use of such practices are identified as unethical, as it has been acting as a threat in the natural course of development of embryos and altering the natural course of events, suspected to be imposing significant influence on infant mortality (Turriziani,
In his piece, “Human Dignity”, Francis Fukuyama explores the perception of human dignity in today's society. This perception is defined by what Fukuyama calls “Factor X”. This piece draws attention to how human dignity has been affected recently and its decline as we go into the future. Using the input given by the Dalai Lama in his piece, “Ethics and New Genetics”, the implementing of factor X and human dignity on future generations will be explored. Through the use of the pieces, “Human Dignity and Human Reproductive Cloning by Steven Malby, Genetic Testing and Its Implications: Human Genetics Researchers Grapple with Ethical Issues by Isaac Rabino, and Gender Differences in the Perception of Genetic Engineering Applied to Human Reproduction by Carol L. Napolitano and Oladele A. Ogunseitan, the decline on the amount of human dignity found in today's society as well as the regression in Factor X that can be found today compared to times past. Society's twist on ethics as a result of pop culture and an increase in genetic engineering has caused for the decline in the amount of dignity shown by the members of society and the regression of Factor X to take hold in today's society.
Many arguments in the abortion debate assume that the morality of abortion depends upon the moral status of the foetus. While I regard the moral status of the foetus as important, it is not the central issue that determines the moral justifiability of abortion. The foetus may be awarded a level of moral status, nevertheless, such status does not result in the prescription of a set moral judgement. As with many morally significant issues, there are competing interests and a variety of possible outcomes that need to be considered when making a moral judgement on abortion. While we need to determine the moral status of the foetus in order to establish the type of entity we are dealing with, it does not, however, exist in a moral vacuum. There are other key issues requiring attention, such as the moral status and interests of the pregnant woman who may desire an abortion, and importantly, the likely consequences of aborting or not aborting a particular foetus. Furthermore, I assert that moral status should be awarded as a matter of degree, based upon the capacities of sentience and self-consciousness an entity possesses. In a bid to reach a coherent conclusion on the issue, the moral status of both foetus and woman, along with the likely results of aborting a particular foetus, must be considered together. Given the multiple facets requiring consideration, I assert that utilitarianism (Mill 1863) offers a coherent framework for weighing and comparing the inputs across a variety of situations, which can determine whether it is ever morally justifiable to have an abortion.
In this essay I will research and provide a timeline of developments to human rights, i will explain the underlying principles of the human rights approach and the importance of adopting human rights to care. After the Second World War ended in the mid 1940’s there became a serious realisation to the importance of human rights. This realisation got the United Nations to establish the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This Declaration shows the first ever international agreement on the primary principles of human rights. There is a total of thirty basic human rights within the Universal Declaration and these rights apply to every single person in the world. An example of one of the rights everyone has is ‘the
I believe that parents are not morally justified in having a child merely to provide life saving medical treatment to another child or family member, but that this does not mean that the creation of savior siblings is morally impermissible. By having a child solely to provide life saving medical treatment, you are treating this child merely as a means rather than an end to the individual child. By having the child solely as a means to save another, you are violating this savior sibling in that you are treating them as a source of spare parts that can be used by the sickly child in order to solely promote the prolonged life of the currently sick child. This view that having a child merely as a way to provide medical treatment does not consider the multitude of other avenues that this newborn child can take, and presupposes that the child will only be used for the single purpose of providing life saving medical treatment through use of stems cells or organ donation. What this view fails to consider is that these savior siblings are valued by families for so much more than just as a human bag of good cells and organs that can be used to save the life of the original child. Instead, these savior siblings can be valued as normal children themselves, in that they can be valued in the same way that any other child who is born is valued, yet at the same time they will also be able to provide life-saving treatment to their sibling. My view runs parallel to the view held by Claudia Mills who argues that it is acceptable to have a savior sibling, yet at the same time we can not have a child for purely instrumental motives, and instead should more so value the child for the intrinsic worth that they have. Mills presents her argument by puttin...
Thomson starts off her paper by explaining the general premises that a fetus is a person at conception and all persons have the right to life. One of the main premises that Thomson focuses on is the idea that a fetus’ right to life is greater than the mother’s use of her body. Although she believes these premises are arguable, she allows the premises to further her explanation of why abortion could be morally permissible. People would find it more understanding and more willing to help someone who is a relative.
The ethics of abortion is a topic that establishes arguments that attempt to argue if abortion is morally justified or not. Philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson wrote a pro- choice piece called “A Defense of Abortion.” In this paper, she presents various arguments that attempt to defend abortion by relating it to the woman carrying the fetus and her right in controlling her body. On the other side of the spectrum, philosopher Don Marquis wrote a pro- life paper called “Why Abortion Is Immoral.” Ultimately, Marquis argues that abortion is immoral with rare exceptions because it is resulting in the deprivation of the fetus’s valuable future. He supports his paper by creating the future-like-ours argument that compares the future of a fetus to the
On formal account, human dignity is best understood in the term of legal principle. But this account does not fit the nature of human dignity because the dignity norm should not use in term of weighed and balanced like any other legal principle and value. On substantive account, however, human dignity has been represented in the idea of right. Nevertheless, this view provides some content of dignity, it fails to play an elementary role in the nature of law because it involves only with a morality critical to the law. For these reasons to build a most fundamental connection between human dignity and law, we should argue that the norm of dignity neither simply operates as one principle among many nor as a critical morality that is external to the law, but as the substantive basic norm or foundational value of the legal enterprise