New Reproductive Technologies
During the debate on March 15, 2000 which discussed new reproductive technologies (NRTS) issues were raised 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 continued by stating that denying individuals the right to utilize NRTS was immoral and in effect discriminated against them due to their "unfavorable" situation. In contrast, the opposition against NRTS raised very negative concerns which included the commercialization of human 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 int
Categorizing NRTS under the freedom to choose results in an analysis of what kind of choice an individual really has when considering NRTS. Are individuals able to choose NRTS, or are there so many other factors which come into play that an individual is coerced to engage in NRTS without being able to make an informed decision? Not only am I going to argue that NRTS are not a moral right but I am also going to dispute the idea that individual's are able to choose NRTS. There are a couple of steps which progress in the discussion of 'choice'. First, I would like to examine why choice exists in the first place, why do individuals engage in NRTS? Second, I will analyze the suppression of information regarding NRTS that make it impossible for an individual to make an informed choice. Finally, I will use Paul Lauritzen to show the societal impacts which factor into NRTS, almost creating a situation that forces people to engage in NRTS due to the negative impact carried by the alternatives. accept responsibility for it. From a situation in which The pressure to bear children using ones own genetic make-up is overwhelming. After being presented with the option of NRTS, rejecting the opportunity to utilize them is extremely difficult, as shown by Paul Lauritzen. His article analyzes NRTS from a personal perspective, having explored many avenues himself. This was Paul's response to the issue of 'choice' and the societal influences that gives choice a negative connotation. choose to be childless. (pp. 106-7).
Some common words found in the essay are:
Paul Lauritzen, NRTS Issues, NRTS Throughout, Categorizing NRTS, NRTS Lauritzen, NRTS Due, , engage nrts, paul lauritzen, choose nrts, utilize nrts, denying person, nrts exist, societal pressures, moral rights, moral issue, freedom choose, moral engage nrts, denying person opportunity, socially culturally constructed, nrts issues raised, raises issues regarding,
Approximate Word count = 1846
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
