Bioethics and Artificial Insemination
With every new technology that is born, there must be many questions as to whether this technology is beneficial or harmful as well as analyze who is affects. This especially holds true in dealing with the technology of artificial insemination. With the cultural mainstreaming of artificial insemination, there have been many articles written discussing the ethics of such decisions. Most of these articles are written by feminist authors with the purpose of discussing the impact of this new technology on women and how it affects their roles as mothers in society.
Daniel Callahan, however, chooses to convey his argument about the bioethics of artificial insemination through a male perspective in his 1992 article “Bioethics and Fatherhood.” He argues that since the beginning of artificial insemination, there has been a trend to overlook the male and his anonymous donation of sperm. His writing style is fairly easy to read and very straightforward in an attempt to convey his point to the general population. His opinion is obvious through his very one-sided argument as well as occasional sarcastic remarks. For this, he does not base many of his points on factual evidence but more abstract, logically deduced theory. His argument is that this man, the sperm donor, is biologically responsible for the newly born child and its life thereafter. He bases his argument around the responsibility of the individual, the technology that allows men to be overlooked, and the rights movement that has lessened the responsibility of the man in fatherhood.
Callahan begins his argument with the discussion of what it means to be a father biologically and morally. He relates these two terms by saying, “Human beings bear a moral responsibility for those voluntary acts that have an impact on the lives of others; they are morally accountable for those acts” (Callahan, 99). Callahan feels that voluntary sexual activity, and by extension voluntary sperm donation, falls under this category. This logic holds true to the entire argument and strengthens his case against the minimization of the father’s role in parenthood. It is based on the very concrete fact that if the man did not give his sperm, the child would not exist. This is a very simple, but very strong argument. Callahan then furthers his case on the morality of sperm donation by saying that even if the child grows up in foster care, if that foster father were to be unfit, the biological father would have a moral obligation for the child.
In Wade F. Horn’s article “Promoting Marriage as a Means of Promoting Fatherhood,” Horn discusses how having a child and being married is better for children because the father is more involved in the child’s life. Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas’s “Unmarried with Children,” on the other hand, takes the reader through Jen’s story about getting pregnant at a young age and deciding not to marry the father of her son. While both sources make appeals to emotion, reason, and character, Edin and Kefalas’s article makes more successful appeals and thus is the stronger argument.
One popular objection is: if it is immoral to deprive someone of a future, or a “future-like-ours”, then it is immoral to deprive a sperm or egg of a “future-like-ours”. Because it is immoral to deprive someone of a future, one must conclude that it is immoral to deprive a sperm or egg of a “future-like-ours”. This objection is in reference to different modes of contraception, such as condoms and birth control. Nevertheless, the biggest problem with Marquis’ argument that allowed for this objection was its indecisiveness and improbability to draw a definitive line. Marquis criticized the pro-lifers and pro-choicers for being unable to have a definitive definition and made the same mistake in his own argument. One could object to his argument by merely questioning where the decision would end; are we to believe that one is depriving a sperm or an egg a future when we use contraception? Another important note is the idea that a “future-like-ours” is even an even more ambiguous term than a “person” or “human being”. It is impossible for the average individual to know which of his sperm or her eggs carries a genetic abnormality that may cause their child to not have a
Our culture has a stringent belief that creating new life if a beautiful process which should be cherished. Most often, the birth process is without complications and the results are a healthy active child. In retrospect, many individuals feel that there are circumstances that make it morally wrong to bring a child into the world. This is most often the case when reproduction results in the existence of another human being with a considerably reduced chance at a quality life. To delve even further into the topic, there are individuals that feel they have been morally wronged by the conception in itself. Wrongful conception is a topic of debate among many who question the ethical principles involved with the sanctity of human life. This paper will analyze the ethical dilemmas of human dignity, compassion, non-malfeasance, and social justice, as well the legal issues associated with wrongful conception.
Abortion has been an ongoing controversial topic for over a decade and majority ethical or political debates begin and ultimately cease with the ruling that was made in the Roe vs Wade trial. The Supreme Court trial did not arise overnight, the difficulty being faced with abortion had started long ago and the Roe vs Wade trial was the final stepping stone into the exploration of the world and substantially the United States with the views of the citizens. The United States is highly affect by the Roe vs Wade trial which is solely surrounded by the controversial topic of the right to abortion. This first and deciding trial has profoundly impacted the topic of abortion, shedding much more light on the exchanges later made in history based on
Kuhse, H. and Singer, P. Bioethics: An Anthology. Malden, MA. Blackwell Publishing. 2006. Part II: Assisted Reproduction. Pence, G. The McCaughey Septuplets: God’s Will or Human Choice?, pages 87-88. Purdy, L. Surrogate Mothering: Exploitation or Empowerment?, pages 91-93. Hanscombe, G. The Right to Lesbian Parenthood, pages 104-107.
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,
No other element of the Women’s Rights Movement has generated as much controversy as the debate over reproductive rights. As the movement gained momentum so did the demand for birth control, sex education, family planning and the repeal of all abortion laws. On January 22, 1973 the Supreme Court handed down the Roe v. Wade decision which declared abortion "fundamental right.” The ruling recognized the right of the individual “to be free from unwanted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” (US Supreme Court, 1973) This federal-level ruling took effect, legalizing abortion for all women nationwide.
As women, it is important to remember that the reproductive freedoms we now have can be easily taken away. Some people take for granted the accessibility to birth control, condoms, and abortion. President Bush has initiated policies since coming into office that threaten women’s choices. As the Bush administration takes over, it is important for women and men to come together to support women’s rights. “Bush is setting a tone for anti-choice legislation, so I expect that any legislator who is anti-choice will put something in this year,” said Jessica Morgan, president of the Baltimore chapter of the National Organization for Women (Koenig, B2). Legislative, executive, and judicial action can very possibly come together during this administration to limit or eliminate women’s reproductive freedom.
Women that push for an abortion do not always have a partner that agrees and supports their decision for terminating the pregnancy. If the father is willing to support and care for the fetus, it is wrong for a woman to go against his wishes and follow through with an abortion. For a father to want to be involved in the fetus’s life means he is willing to take on the responsibilities of having a child so he should have a say if his fetus should be terminated or not. The Becoming A Father/Refusing Fatherhood article states, “To be a father-as-progenitor a man simply has to provide the sperm that leads to conception, whereas to be a father-as-carer a man has to take on a variety of social roles. The roles associated with the father-as-carer included disciplinarian, breadwinner/provider, guardian, moral compass, sex role model, guide and friend” (Ives 78). To have a father-as-carer in an offspring’s life gives a woman no reason to get an abortion. The woman is consciously aware of the outcomes of intercourse when willingly performing in such an act. In the Rethinking Roe V. Wade article it states, “if a woman concedes to voluntary sexual intercourse, she has incurred a responsibility to care for the fetus, since she is responsible for its existence and subsequent dependence on her body for sustenance. Consequently, she has a moral obligation to sustain it until birth, an obligation that ought to be legally enforced by proscribing abortions” (Manninen 41). The female is aware of the consequences when engaging in sexual acts so it should be her responsibility to carry the fetus to term. The presence of a partner that is willing to stay by the women’s side and support her during the pregnancy does not give her a reason to obtain an abort...
The website that contains the above sentence is a site that discusses stories about some men that do not believe they should pay child support. In some of the cases, the man is unaware that he was the biological father of the child, but was ordered by court to pay to help support the child. Other cases were about divorced couples where the man is upset about providing for the children after the separation even if they are his biological children. In the view of Daniel Callahan, the author of the article “Bioethics and Fatherhood”, this website is nonsense. He argues that, “given the obvious importance of procreation in bringing human life into existence, fathers have a significant moral responsibility for the children they voluntarily procreate”. In the situations where the biological fathers just don’t want to give up their money for the children, Callahan’s argument can be directly applied. For the other cases, the argument can still be used because those men had believed that they were the real fathers at first. The fact that they aren’t obligated to take on the responsibility of caring for that child, does not mean that all responsibility should be taken off the real biological father and put on the man that thought he was. The website, Women’s Health Care Services, also agrees with argument and says, “The father of a child has a legal responsibility to provide for the support, educational, medical and other needs of that child.” Therefore the dad should at least be there financially for their child.
Ricci, Mariella Lombardi. "Assisted Procreation And Its Relationship To Genetics And Eugenics." Human Reproduction & Genetic Ethics 15.1 (2009): 9-29. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Apr. 2014.
The addition of a child into a family’s home is a happy occasion. Unfortunately, some families are unable to have a child due to unforeseen problems, and they must pursue other means than natural pregnancy. Some couples adopt and other couples follow a different path; they utilize in vitro fertilization or surrogate motherhood. The process is complicated, unreliable, but ultimately can give the parents the gift of a child they otherwise could not have had. At the same time, as the process becomes more and more advanced and scientists are able to predict the outcome of the technique, the choice of what child is born is placed in the hands of the parents. Instead of waiting to see if the child had the mother’s eyes, the father’s hair or Grandma’s heart problem, the parents and doctors can select the best eggs and the best sperm to create the perfect child. Many see the rise of in vitro fertilization as the second coming of the Eugenics movement of the 19th and early 20th century. A process that is able to bring joy to so many parents is also seen as deciding who is able to reproduce and what child is worthy of birthing.
In 2000 the United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA) defined reproductive rights as "the basic rights of couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children; to have the information and means to do so; and to have the right to make decisions concerning reproduction, free of discrimination, coercion or violence."[1] Traditionally society defines reproductive rights in the context of one's being able to make decisions about his or her own reproduction; other individuals, unrelated to that person, were not considered as being involved in the decision. With the onset of in vitro fertilization (IVF) in 1978, reproductive processes have become more complicated. For example, in gestational surrogacy a surrogate mother, not genetically related to the embryo, is brought into the process of 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.[2] 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.
"Reproductive Technologies." Bioethics for Students: How Do We Know What’s Right?, edited by Steven G. Post, vol. 1, Macmillan Reference USA, 1999. Opposing Viewpoints in
A woman enters into a contract that consists on her getting pregnant with a strangers sperms, and after the baby is born, to give up the baby. The stranger is going to pay the medical expenses and $10,000 in exchange of claiming all the parental rights when the baby is born. The stranger is a good person who has not been able to have children on his own. Why does the morality of the action may seem doubtful? Philosopher Elizabeth Anderson wrote an essay called “is Women’s Labor a Commodity?” to explain in detail the reasons of commercial surrogacy being morally wrong. In her paper, Anderson explains that commercial surrogacy treats children and parental rights as objects that could be bought and sold for personal convenience. According to