As Psalm 139:14 says I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. We shouldn't listen to the world and definitely not let them define us, but hold on to every bit of the truth in the Bible like Psalm 139:14. In-Vitro Fertilization is taking the egg and the sperm and placing in in a testing tube and basically making a baby outside of the body in a laboratory and then they take the embryo and put it in the uterus (IVF). One of the reason that women use IVF is because their Fallopian tube is damaged and they have a desire to get pregnant and reduces the need to get surgeries. Through the process of IVF couples can have children of their own and it helps clients learn how to prevent birth defects.
Diseases? No one please. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) has been used for medical purposes such as screening embryos for life-threatening diseases, but it can also be used to create designer babies. As futuristic as sound, the genetic engineering scientists are at the edges of making true the idea of shopping for a perfect child, which, once thought to be only possible to see in science-fiction movies. The Christian Science Monitor magazine reported.
In conclusion, the issue on whether parents should be allowed to choose the sex of their baby has emerged because of advances in Assisted Reproductive Technology, especially Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. This issue has attracted numerous debates and controversies, which are mainly centered on its merits, demerits, morality and probable effects. Some of the arguments raised to support the practice include its non-medical advantages and reduction of the risk of sexism. Despite these arguments, this practice should be restricted because it contributes to commodification of children, is a form of sexism, and ignores several social issues related to reproduction.
This technique allows infertile couples to carry a child or children in the womb of a carrier, rather than in the womb of the biological mother.  As a result of this ethically controversial technology, society must modify its reproductive rights. In vitro fertilization (IVF) alone will not solve people's reproductive problems and protect everybody's rights. Society, therefore, must distinguish whose rights-the rights of biological parents or those of the surrogate mothers-should be protected. Gestational surrogacy, especially when it involves commercial surrogates, challenges the status quo in the ethical theory of reproduction, because with this technology the process of producing a child can no longer remain a private matter.
If not to be used in medical research, or assist in bioengineering children, to help infertile couples have a baby. In my opinion, after weighing out the evidence and arguments both supporting and opposing human cloning, I think it is immoral to create life, especially to treat cloned humans as tools to 'assist' in development even though they would be humans just like you and me.
Sex selection should only be taken in consideration if there is a medical situation, otherwise the non-medical reasons will become catastrophic and the value of natural life will decease over time. Sex selection methods have elicited heated debate in the medical community for years. Physicians believe it is a great way to balance families, while others believe we are in great danger. The most important part of this argument is the families themselves. Some parents have argued that they have every right to choose the sex of their baby, while others petition that sex selection makes the process of childbirth unnatural.
While in-vitro fertilization has helped in dealing with male and female infertility, there are several potential risks associated with it including embryonic decrease, multiple pregnancies, cloning, risk of transmission of infectious disease, choice of donors, and donor motivation (Germond, n.d.). These issues emerge from the fact that the process involves the practice of surrogacy, a third party through genetic material donation, cryopreservation of and experiments on pre-embryos, and genetic manipulation. The second major issue in procreation is abortion, which has become a major controversial issue that has generated differing opinions from pro-life supporters and pro-choice advocates. Pro-life supporters are those who believe that life begins at conception and argue that abortion is equal to murder and is therefore prohibited while pro-choice are those who consider absolute independence of the woman over her body and argue against taking other extreme approaches. As a result of these differing opinions, debates or controversies regarding abortion is centered on whether the practice is legitimate or illegitimate.
If God would have wanted us to clone ourselves, he would of given us a way for a-sexual reproduction. But because we were made to reproduce bi-sexually, this is the only way we should continue to do so. However, in contrast to the opinions of their peers, some Jewish and Muslim religious leaders testified before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission that they feel that embryo and cloning research might provide discoveries that would lead to an appropriate way to counter infertility. Others feel that the emotional pressures on a teenager trying to establish his or her identity is also a concern. How will a child be able to distinguish between her mother, and her sister, will they be one in the same?
Later, the ffDNA will be isolated for analysis. It has been clinically valid that the test can verify the gender, rhesus D and other Mendelian conditions (Benn and Chapman 2008). There are tremendous possibilities NIPD brings including ethical issues that may also be raised throughout its development. In reality, screening techniques are being emphasized more than the physical and psychological effects of the parents and babies (Buckley and Buckley 2008). As mentioned, the obvious difference between IPD and NIPD is the risk of pregnancy loss IPD carries.
We can all thank technology for such an opportunity… right? John Smeaton, national director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said: “One has tremendous sympathy for couples who suffer infertility problems. But this seems to be a further illustration of the fact that the whole process of in vitro fertilization as a means of conceiving babies leads to babies being regarded as objects on a production line. It is a further and very worrying step down the wrong road for humanity” (Hanlon). Smeaton raises some interesting points; a baby should not be equated to designer clothes.