Please answer all of the following. I am writing about this for my dissertation. All other comments are most welcome. Thanks:
Is it acceptable to have a child through IVF where eggs are fertilised to create embryos before implantation into the womb?
Is it acceptable to test embryos for genetic diseases before choosing which to implant through IVF?
Is it acceptable to test embryos to see if they are a compatible donor with an existing sibling requiring a matching donor before choosing which to implant through IVF?
Is it acceptable to test embryos to see if they will be a boy or a girl before choosing which to implant through IVF?
Is it acceptable to test embryos for desirable traits such as athletic ability or hair colour before choosing which to implant through IVF?
If it were possible, would it be acceptable to 'design' a baby by changing part of the genetic code of an embryo before implantation through IVF for health reasons? And for aesthetic reasons such as eye/hair colour?
Where should we draw the line with prenatal choice in IVF?
personally i dont think there should be any IVF, they are messing about too much with things, nature should be left to its own devices.
If that means some couples dont have children of their own then unfortunately thats how it is, there are already so many children that need adopting or looking after.
I think its quite disgusting that people may be able to choose hair colour etc,
trouble is its all gone too far now for it not to happen
but its just not right
Where should we draw the line with prenatal choice in IVF?
Theae are some very interesting questions. I wrote a similar paper about cloning for my thesis and would love to know how your final dissertation looks...
I am of the opinion that IVF treatment is in itself immoral and wrong. I believe the act of procreation is proper to husband and wife within the act of martial love only. While I do understand that it can be traumatic for couples to experience infertility (my hasband and I have repeatedly miscarried), I think the infertility can be seen as a sacrifice and a call to holiness. I find it immoral and reprehensible that money is spent at the same time on IVF and abortion. Couples who are infertile are called to be generous with their love and should adopt rather than seeking unnatural interference in their fertility. If more people were willing to adopt, I think that fewer abortions would take place.
I also believe that infertility, while tragic, is not always natural. The increasing sexual experimentation among people today has led to an increase in the number of STD's, which, I believe, is linked to the rise in infertility. Also peoples diets are less healthy, this combined with increased alcohol consumption (especially in women) is at least partly responsible for infertility. Women today are also more likely to take the pill, have contraceptive implants and jabs and have abortions - all of these contribute to fertility problems later in life. (The British medical profession and the government are keen to deny this, but studies in the US have clearly sown a link).
With regard to screening embryos, again I think this is a dangerous area to explore. Firstly because we cannot know eveything about a person based simply on their genetic make-up. (Famously a group of medical students were asked which embryo they would abort: embryo a: religious man and strong leader or embryo b: unstable and prone to depression. They all chose to abort embryo b. The professor answered that they had just saved Hitler and killed Van Gogh). Secondly a child born specifically as a donor sibling is not being given their full human dignity. This child does not, in the eyes of the parents and the medical establishment, exist in its own right, but merely as a supplier of materials to an older sibling. Thirdly quality of life is a subjective things. Who has the right to decide who should and shouldn't be born? We already know that if an embryo is so genetically damaged that the baby would not be viable that miscarriage occurs. Medical science has come a long was in the last 50 years and treatments are available now that were previously unimaginable.
As far as screening for sex goes. If a couple really wants a baby boy or girl specificall so badly then they should adopt. Children are not commodities, they are gifts and are individual persons. By screening for a particular sex, eye or hair colour, we reduce the nature of the human person to that of a dog, or worse, a mere accessory such as a handbag.
Hope this helps you and Good luck!
Where should we draw the line with prenatal choice in IVF?
The first 3 are acceptable,the second 3 arent.
Where should we draw the line with prenatal choice in IVF?
serious one i have kids and i think that its acceptable in certain situations to have IVF eg:- no children and infertile but not if the mother is above a certain age and already has kids.
i don't agree with genetic selection to decide on thing like appearance and the sex of the child unless the parents are predisposed to having a child that could have a single sex genetic problem.
as for testing for genetic disabilities, who is anyone to judge people who do that, its hard having a (normal) child, let alone one with disabilities but disabled children have a lot of love to give.
that's just my opinion its a very emotive subject
i also believe the media has a lot of weight on this issue and is responsible for a lot of the recent debate on this subject.
once you start having designer babies where do you stop all individuality would be lost.
Where should we draw the line with prenatal choice in IVF?
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
I may be biased though because I am currently pregnant with my first child through IVF. I didn't have my embryos tested for sex or diseases before having them implanted into my uterus.
Where should we draw the line with prenatal choice in IVF?
No on all counts. All human life is sacred and is a gift from God. He decides whether we have children or not. We interfere with natural processes at our peril.
No comments:
Post a Comment