The author of the Nature article “Making babies: the next 30” , uses pathos to persuade his readers of the benefits of in vitro fertilization. He presents the idea that this form of reproduction hasn’t changed, they are trying to provide people that cannot have children with the opportunity to do so and take away children from the people that don’t want them. In a perfect setting this is the solution to the world’s problems. Readers relate this issue to their friends or family members that have this situation and are sympathetic for them. If anyone of any age is eligible to have a child with in vitro fertilization then what are the increased number of human embryo being used for?
Because the development of this subject is still fairly new, people are interested in the process that in vitro practices. The author of “Making babies: The next 30 years” chooses to make no reference to the way the cells will be made, therefore not speaking to the ethical issues concerning the embryos. In another article “Some moral and ethical issues concerning IVF techniques” the author approaches the ethical issues of IVF treatments from the view of the Catholic Church. While yes, not everyone agrees with the Catholic church they represent the conservative fews of society in a strong manner; new life can be made through in virtro fertilization but many unborn babies are also destroyed in the process. The surplus number of human embryos are sold off and manufactured, not truly considered as a human life. Ethical reasons are a substantial part of the ongoing in vitro fertilization debate. People have a right to support their reasons and opinions through their faith. The article based on the Catholic Church relates the idea of love and marriage back to this topic. For those who base their morality through their faith, God’s intentions for marriage are love and reproduction; IVF treatments don’t sustain this principle.
Advances in technology should also introduce new safety protocol. “Making babies: the next thirty years” emphasizes the fact that new IVF technology can result in artificial placentas, pre genetic diagnosis, increased embryo survival rate, and artificial womb-technology. These advancements can bring great possibilities, but what it doesn’t refer to is the possibility of defectiveness and the safety concerns for both the children and the parents. Is it worth the risks? The author of “Some moral and ethical issues of IVF treatments “illuminates the point that babies born using in vitro fertilization are more likely to be disabled in some form or another. Parents unable to conceive should consider the possibilities of adoption; the IVF process leads to the destruction of human embryos before they find the one that will work and then still, there is the possibility of it being defective. Adoption serves as a way to not only build a family but also further the life of a birthed baby.
Not only is the embryo or child’s health at risk but the parent is also at risk. Some parents worry about the genetic components that could affect their children. These parents result to preimplantation genetic diagnosis where doctors assess the chances that their children will inherit certain traits. How trustworthy is a preimplantation genetic diagnosis? If parents find a specific gene disorder that could negatively affect their child they will work to fix or avoid it. There’s always the possibility that the genetic information isn’t correct and they go to drastic measures to change it. “Making babies: the next thirty years” claims that IVF babies are more susceptible to Beckwith Wiedemann syndrome, but they are unclear about the actual effects. IVF treatments are not taking the safety precautions that they should. They simply brush over the idea and don’t even consider the long term effects of IVF children. Safety concerns are a legitimate reason why IVF treatment should not be legal.
Activists of IVF treatment view this technology as a solution to provide children for those that wish to have them. They do not account for the stress, the possible failure and the tension that can be put on the family by IVF. IVF treatment enforces the question of pro-choice. In the article “A new debate over in vitro” a doctor states that after a women goes through the in vitro process they hope to build families but if the women wishes to terminate the baby its solely her decision. Not only does IVF take more effort to produce a baby than the natural way, it is expensive and can possibly destroy many embryos before making just one. The topic of pro choice also introduces the thoughts on abortion. While abortion by a normal pregnancy is a highly debated topic, abortion after in vitro should not even be a practical option. In vitro is a planned pregnancy made with real embryo that shouldn’t be thrown away like a typical science project. Irrational decisions after beginning the in vitro fertilization process is one of the many reasons IVF treatments cannot be properly managed. It is understandable that the stress of in vitro fertilization can be overwhelming but it is already suggested that whoever choices to do so should have proper counseling for the emotional aspects of the pregnancy. Too many people embark on the journey of fertility treatment before they realize the financial, emotional and physical aspect. The more popular IVF becomes the larger possibility for increased abortion rates. The author states “Because in the end, terminating fertility treatment or terminating a relationship may prove less traumatic than terminating a pregnancy (A new debate over in vitro).”
Along with ethical, practical and safety concerns, IVF treatment opens doors for new opportunities for technology to expand. IVF supporters seem to forget the extent in which an artificial process can be taken. Will cloning become legal in order to “cure illnesses?” Will people begin to develop designer babies eliminating the diversity in the world? Without proper regulation no one knows the extent of IVF. The Catholic Church does not agree with human cloning and realizes that it may be only a matter of time before testing changes from animals to humans. Not only does IVF treatment bring uncertainty in the future it is also morally wrong. The act of having a baby should be morally sound. IVF treatment goes against the nature aspect of reproducing as well as increasing the chance of sickness and disease among these babies.
The controversial topic of in vitro fertilization needs legitimate reasons to be rightfully justified. IVF activists have manipulated our thoughts on in vitro fertilization seemingly forgetting to mention the important risks, and disapprovals that the topic encompasses. The surplus and destructive nature of human embryo discredits the possibility of everyone’ s ability to have children. The faith that stands behind the natural way of reproduction and the potential long-term harmful effects on IVF children seize the positives of the process. Choosing the path of this technology in order to have a baby and then aborting it reveals the immoral aspect of IVF treatment. IVF treatment should be illegal, there is no way to actively control its rights and maintain an ethical standard.
Pearson, Helen. "Making Babies: the next 30 Years." Nature. 16 July 2008. Web. 27 Sept. 2010.
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080716/full/454260a.html
"Some Moral and Ethical Issues concerning IVF Techniques « Brendakaren's Weblog." Brendakaren's Weblog. Web. 27 Sept. 2010.
"Some Moral and Ethical Issues concerning IVF Techniques « Brendakaren's Weblog." Brendakaren's Weblog. Web. 27 Sept. 2010.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/arguments-for-and-against-the-designer-baby-541283.html
No comments:
Post a Comment