1 / 19

Reproductive Technology

Reproductive Technology. Vaughn Ch. 8. Issues. Vaughn, p354, lists issues related to ART: Assisted Reproductive Technology: nature and meaning of the family the treatment of women moral status of embryos value of human life sanctity of natural procreation

jud
Download Presentation

Reproductive Technology

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Reproductive Technology Vaughn Ch. 8

  2. Issues Vaughn, p354, lists issues related to ART: Assisted Reproductive Technology: • nature and meaning of the family • the treatment of women • moral status of embryos • value of human life • sanctity of natural procreation • legitimacy of “reproductive rights” an ad from http://www.sharedjourney.com/ivf.html

  3. IVF In Vitro Fertilization is the process of getting an embryo implanted by these steps: • Ovarian stimulation • Egg retrieval • Insemination / fertilization • Embryo culture • Embryo transfer In vitro (in glass) as opposed to In Utero (in the uterus)or In Vivo (in life)

  4. General IVF Issues Vaughn says • At last count, 2 million infertile couples in the U.S. • IVF costs average $12,400 (per cycle) • Success rate is just 28% • Health risks increase for mothers and children (read p357, column 1) • Storage of embryos, ownership questions (read column 2) http://www.advancedfertility.com/cryotank.htm

  5. Harm to Children Argument Since there is a non-trivial increase in health risks to children conceived through IVF, Vaughn presents the pro and con arguments using Cynthia Cohen’s piece Give me children or I shall Die! … Harm to Children Argument (p358): IVF isn’t as safe is natural conception, therefore it’s wrong to use it Interest in Existing Argument (same): even if some kids are damaged, even severely, it is better to be alive than not No Harm in Not Existing Argument (same): the interest in existing argument is confused: there is no harm to possible persons when they fail to be conceived

  6. Additional Arguments Vaughn considers the argument that IVF leads us to view offspring as manufactured products or commodities acquired in the marketplace for a price. Reply 1: money doesn’t mean parents would love kids any less Reply 2: adoption involves prices and payments, so, if market makes IVF wrong, it makes adoption wrong too Does Reply 2 work? What relevant difference is there between IVF and adoption?

  7. Vatican Argument The Vatican argues IVF is • contrary to the unity of marriage • to the dignity of spouses • to the vocation proper to parents • to the child’s right to be conceived and brought into the world in marriage and from marriage How might IVF be contrary to the unity of marriage? the dignity of spouses? So on…???

  8. Feminist Argument Feminists have argued that • IVF makes it harder to resist the social pressures to procreate • Such pressure amounts to coercion. • Therefore, IVF is oppressive to women Mary Ann Warren argues what in response? p359

  9. Must Show Harm? Vaughn’s final word on IVF is to agree with John Robertson that • reproductive freedom is good • because freedom is good, • and if you want to restrict it, you must show where the harm is p359-360

  10. Surrogacy Part 2

  11. Surrogacy 2 Types: Traditional Surrogate (Surrogate is biological Mother) Gestational Surrogate (Womb for Hire) Gestational surrogates are genetically unrelated (or not directly related … we’re all genetically related after all) to the offspring Traditional Surrogacy is more problematic

  12. Baby Selling? Top of p362 Vaughn claims the critics of surrogacy (which on the previous page he notes is illegal in some states … both sorts?) usually complain about “commercial surrogacy,” less so against “altruistic surrogacy,” where women volunteer their services.

  13. Baby Selling? The critics charge that • the selling of such services “undermine the norms of parental love.” Reply: • “She [the surrogate] is not selling an existing close relationship with someone, but selling or forfeiting the right to enjoy a future parent-child relationship.” Is there a duty that goes unmentioned here? Whose?

  14. Baby Selling? Reply 2: • “the practice is not that different from adoption, in which biological parents give away their children (and any hope of a relationship with them)” Reply to reply 2: • “adoption is … for placing children in families when their parents cannot or will not discharge their parental responsibilities. It is not a sphere for the existence of a supposed parental right to dispose of one’s children for profit.”

  15. Baby Selling? Bonnie Steinbock argues that baby selling, which she thinks occurs, could be circumvented by viewing surrogacy as ‘prenatal adoption’. Read her reasoning on p362. • Does it work? • What’s the last word on Surrogacy? • Is it okay to intentionally create babies knowing you will be depriving them of one or another of their biological parents? • Does allowing visitation with a remote parent help?

  16. Cloning Part 3

  17. Pro-Cloning Arguments Vaughn, p364… • Cloning does not result in identical individuals anymore than identical twins does, even less so as the birth environment will be hormonally and nutritionally different • Cloning would allow infertile adults to be biologically connected to their children, rather than being satisfied with adoption of other’s children • Cloning would be a way to retrieve a portion of a child who dies in an accident, of disease, etc. • Cloning would allow us to grow a body full of spare parts in case injury or disease destroys ours

  18. Anti-Cloning Arguments • Cloning violates a person’s right to a unique identity • Cloning violates a person’s right to ignorance or to an ‘open future’ • Cloning is an unnatural process and people prefer natural to unnatural • Cloning is dehumanizing because of its technological nature

  19. Reply to Anti-Cloning Argument Reply to 4: Vaughn quotes Dan Brock: It would be a mistake, however, to conclude that a human being created by human cloning is of less value or is less worthy of respect than one created by sexual reproduction. It is the nature of the being, and not how it is created, that is the source of its value and makes it worthy of respect. Can you think of a reply to this argument? Is it correct?

More Related