New Reproduction Technologies :: essays research papers

During the debate on March 15, 2000 which discussed new reproductive technologies (NRTS) issues were raised(a) regarding the positive and negative effects of NRTS. Issues raised by the advocates of NRTS were surrounding infertility, homosexuality, disease, and cloning. All of these factors raised were concerning the moral rights of individuals who were unable to have children of their own without the help of NRTS. The debate move by stating that denying individuals the right to utilize NRTS was immoral and in effect discriminated against them due to their &8220unfavorable situation. In contrast, the opposition against NRTS raised really negative concerns which included the commercialization of merciful reproduction, quality control, generating waste products, and the rights of the pre-embryo. These issues suggest that through NRTS children were being commodified and the rights of the pre-embryo were being ignored. The debate generally focused on the rights of the individual, man or woman, versus the rights of the unborn child. The debate was very interesting which led me to look at the impact of NRTS at another angle. After examining the issues raised in the debate I was left questioning why NRTS exist in the first place? Whose interest do they serve? Who won/lost and what was at stake? The reason I am concentrate on these issues is because while I was reading the NRTS articles something stuck in my mind. In What Price Parenthood? Social and Ethical Aspects of Reproductive Technology by capital of Minnesota Lauritzen thither are some issues covered which seem to be left out of the class debate. The societal pressures to utilize NRTS once they are presented to an individual are overwhelming. Paul Lauritzen raises issues regarding the social aspects of NRTS that I had never considered. I have therefore decided to further research the social impacts of NRTS. My essay has two objectives first I would resembling to prove that no one has the moral right to eng age in NRTS, it follows under the freedom of choice but it is not the &8220right of an individual. Second I testament debate whether, due to societal influences, any individual actually &8220chooses NRTS or if they are coerced. Rejecting the claim that it is an individual&8217s moral right to engage in NRTS is based on the definition of a moral right. A moral right is an opportunity to choose an option that is available to everyone else. To deny a psyche the right to engage in an activity that every other person can do is morally wrong.