Research Proposal: Should People be tested before having Kids? Children are a necessity to continuing legacies, and as such, they are vital to society. However, it would not be the best option for some people to carry on their genes, as they are unfit as both future parents and people. This is why I propose a test for both physical, mental, and emotional stability of a person before having children as my paper topic. Assuming such a perfect society would exist, this test would be given after a person turned 18, and would be kept in files of behaviors this person had before conceiving children. The people who passed these tests would also obtain a sort of licensing paperwork. When this adult has children, they will be tested once more before leaving the hospital with their child. Failing this test would result in the loss of the child, who would then be sent to a foster home, or relocated to fit parents. Don’t consider moving out of the United States just yet-most people would pass this test. The ones who would not are the type of people whose stories will be exemplified in the next few paragraphs, further backing up my accusation. The Huffington Post, a well accredited newspaper, has an article with an alarming headline: “Two arrested after video appears to show …show more content…
What would give me the right to think this sort of society would be acceptable, even though it is technically taking rights away? Well, consider this: “A report of Child abuse is made every ten seconds” (Childhelp, n.d.) and “five children die per day” (Childhelp, n.d.) in the United States. This may not seem like a lot in the grand scheme of things, However, considering there are 365 days a year, and five children dying per day from abusive parents, that makes the total number out to be 1,825 children per year. This number is only the number of cases actually reported; this doesn’t even include the children who died that were not
.... Reproductive freedom and risk. Human Reproduction, 21(10), 2491-3. Retrieved February 7, 2011, from http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/10/2491.full.pdf+html.
Finally, Stuart Rachels discusses the objections that do not agree with his opinion. Some think that it is a disastrous result that people do not have children because the whole world may become aging and human beings may not exist anymore and others mention that to bear children is a natural thing for human beings (Rachels, 2013). Aimed at different objections, Rachels has given the explanation. For example, he claims that his opinion is just to say that people should not have children, but do not forbid people to have children. In other words, to have children depends on the economic situation of
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.
...et an abortion. As a strong opponent against abortion, I feel that pregnant women should not be allowed to undergo the testing because it can risk the lives of unborn babies.
"National Right to Life | The Nation's Oldest & Largest Pro-life Organization." National Right to
Doctors constantly argue about the fact that deciding to test a child would “denial him the chance to make the decision as an adult” (Klitzman). They are advised to allow their child to mature and make the decision when they are old enough. Choosing them could be considered unethical because there is a chance the child may not want to know. The desire to test children stems from the fact that parents hope they can “prevent disease and maintain a healthier lifestyle for their children” (Rochman). But how can you prevent a disease that hasn’t yet developed, especially without anything to assist?
Virtual reality can be used to virtually take two people’s DNA to create a virtual embryo to get an idea of how the child’s health, physical characteristics, as well as other factors, will be (de Lange, 2014). The technology not only looks for genetic disorders but it also provides physical traits. This is an ethical concern because rather than using this technology strictly for its intended use, screening genetic disorders, it might be used for more superficial reasons (de Lange, 2014). The decision to have a child should not be based on superficial reasons like what their eye color or skin color would be. It should be based more on if the people who desire to have a child are mentally, physically, and financially ready to take on the huge responsibility of taking care of children and giving them the best possible chance to succeed in this
Mills, Claudia. "Are There Morally Problematic Reasons for Having Children?." Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly 25.4 (2005): 2-9. Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly. Web. 29 Nov. 2013.
A genetic test can help a person prepare for the future. For instance, if a couple wanted to have kids and they knew a disease like sickle cell ran in the family they may consider getting a genetic test. They would be able to find out whether or not they ar...
Allen, B., (1994). Predictive genetic testing: ethical, legal and social implications. USA Today Nov 1994:66-69. Reference 2.
Spielman, B. (1995). [Review of Women and prenatal testing]. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 23, 199-201.
In today’s world, people are learning a great deal in the rapidly growing and developing fields of science and technology. Almost each day, an individual can see or hear about new discoveries and advances in these fields of study. One science that is rapidly progressing is genetic testing; a valuable science that promotes prevention efforts for genetically susceptible people and provides new strategies for disease management. Unnaturally, and morally wrong, genetic testing is a controversial science that manipulates human ethics. Although genetic testing has enormous advantages, the uncertainties of genetic testing will depreciate our quality of life, and thereby result in psychological burden, discrimination, and abortion.
This paper presents an ethical analysis of the mandatory newborn HIV testing law enacted in New York State. The law was passed as an effort to decrease maternal transmission of HIV, by treating infants born to HIV positive mothers immediately after birth with AZT. Newborn testing was promoted by the legislative and medical community following the overwhelmingly positive response from HIV infected pregnant women who were given AZT in the ACTG 076 clinical trials. Pregnant mothers who were given AZT had a markedly lower transmission rate than mothers who had not received it. This paper examines this newborn testing policy from a Utilitarian perspective to ascertain if the goals of the policy are feasible. The potential advantages, as well as the failures of using this policy are discussed. Implementations to improve the policy are also presented.
First of all, I want to start by saying that I 'm not discriminating the disabled community, but this is a very large number that could possibly be diminished with the help of genetic testing. (1) I believe that there is nothing wrong with testing the genes of an unborn child to possibly determine if it could develop a genetic disorder in the future. One of the advantages that genetic testing provides is that the parents could now be informed of the situation, and keep track of their unborn child 's health. I 'm sure those parents are pleased with this technology, and the chances to be able to keep track of their baby. This a baby, and is something very precious, and valuable, and I believe that parents want to keep track of anything that may happen with the unborn child. I 'm sure that a large amount of people would agree would agree that they don 't want to suddenly take the hard hit. When the news is presented in the delivery room. This serves more as an advantage than a disadvantage, due to the fact parents. Pull be more prepared, or possibly have the option to abort it. This is a right that the parents should have regardless of the opposing side arguments towards it. Im a hundred percent sure that the opposing side has very strong arguments towards genetics testing, and one of the main ones is "playing God." The opposing side believed that some things in
Many individuals are taking the process of process of parental licensing into their own hands, despite their contributions being made up in mind only, however, it is thought that counts. One respective person believes that a restriction on having children should begin at the earliest stage of one’s life: birth. As soon as a child is born, doctors should “go in and turn off their spickets” (McRedmond). In the later stages of life, this would prevent several cases of teen pregnancies, seeing as though it would be an impossibility for women to get pregnant. Then, when a women eventually becomes ready enough to think about having children, they should go through a testing process, perhaps similar to Sherman’s ideas of interviews, writing, and demonstrations of capability. If they pass, they “get their spickets turned