New Reproduction Technologies :: essays research papers

During the debate on March 15, 2000 which discussed new fruitful technologies (NRTS) issues were raised regarding the positive and cast let on effects of NRTS. Issues raised by the advocates of NRTS were ring infertility, homosexuality, disease, and cloning. All of these factors raised were concerning the moral remunerates of individuals who were unable to have children of their own without the serve well 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 &8220unfavorable situation. In contrast, the opposition against NRTS raised very negative concerns which included the commercialization of hu gentleman reproduction, quality control, generating waste products, and the rights of the pre-embryo. These issues suggest that through and through NRTS children were being commodified and the rights of the pre-embryo were being ignored. The debate generally focused on the rights o f the individual, man or woman, versus the rights of the unborn child. The debate was very interesting which led me to facial gesture 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 starting line place? Whose interest do they serve? Who won/ baffled and what was at stake? The reason I am focusing on these issues is because while I was reading the NRTS articles something stuck in my mind. In What Price ancestry? Social and Ethical Aspects of Reproductive Technology by Paul Lauritzen in that location 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 thus decided to further research the social impacts of NRTS. My essay has two objectives first I would like to prove that no one ha s the moral right to quest after in NRTS, it follows under the freedom of choice but it is not the &8220right of an individual. Second I will debate whether, due to societal influences, all individual actually &8220 conducts 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 person the right to engage in an activity that every other person can do is morally wrong.