There are also opposing sides to this topic as well. With medical side effects that can cause more distress then the possible undesirable traits of a child the determination is not concrete. Many facts support the advancements and benefits but can also discourage the possibility of sex selection. After reading I hope that a person can be further informed and able to make an educated opinion as to whether or not this topic is ethical or not ethical. The author of this paper is strongly against the option to choose the gender of their child.
Scientists are finding ways to figure out more and more about children before they are born, such as the sex of the child or whether or not the child is diseased with a mental disability. The issue with this is that many parents are finding out the child is mentally challenged or the child is the opposite sex as they wanted, the parents are opting to abort the baby. Scientists have also found away to find the errors pre-born babies, and are now able to fix it. The problem is that by interfering with the babies before they are born could cause complications and affect the child in a poor way in the future. If you were to leave the issue alone no babies could be risked to be harmed or risk being aborted by their parents solely based on their gender.
The subjects don’t have a choice in this type of research and any parent who would be willing to do this type of research on their children is unethical. I would not let my own children be subject to this type of research. I feel that there are a lot of problems with this type of research design. As I keep saying it is unethical because these are innocent babies who do not have a choice in this type of research. I just hope that any parent would deny their children to this type of research.
IT is however important to note that Natural Law thinkers are not concerned with the consequences of actions, whether they bring good or bad doesn’t matter but what matters to them is whether the action itself is good or bad. Kantian Ethics would also further disagree with Fertility Treatment as the Categorical Imperative says that people must be treated as ends in themselves. If an embryo is a life then the destruction of spare embryos during IVF would be seen as using them as a means to an end. Further if the embryo was experimented upon instead, and the embryo
This is an example of social norms, It’s our responsibility to help those in need. Finally, we help based on our basic gene structure. We are hard wired to not self sacrifice because we would not survive in evolutionary competition. However, It’s been shown that parents will put their child's life before theres, but that’s because it makes it more likely to pass on their genes. All three of these theories come back to a selfish reason for helping, meaning that none of these are truly an act of true altruism.
It is becoming clear that custody evaluators tend to approach these cases with a culturally insensitive approach toward sexual orientation. This phenomenon is similar to the “color-blind” approach, which ignores differences between various racial groups, often times stripping them of their identity and unique needs. While it may seem politically correct to treat cases involving a same-sex parent as you would treat cases involving two heterosexual parents, failing to acknowledge and address critical differences in these cases violates our ethical responsibilities not only to our profession, but also ignores what is best for the children involved. The continuation of this research is vital in creating appropriate guidelines for custody evaluators and developing the proper training for psychologists to become competent to work on these specific types of cases. Moving this research forward as a dissertation project combines my passion for issues of diversity with my interest in the legal system.
In Warren's argument the ability to communicate is vital to being a human being. This is one where the fetus probably loses the most as they have no real means to communicate with the outside world. At best the argument can be made that their kicking is them trying to communicate. But this is another instance and probably the best one where it could be used to carry her position forward to the point of “aborting” people who are far beyond the womb. Let is take Doctor Steven Hawking for example.
The contrasting view to this (Pro-choice) would argue that if someone hasn’t developed as a person yet they do not have the right to life as they are not a person until they are born. With so many different factors and opinions as to when someone becomes a person this can become a difficult and awkward topic. For example if someone is a human if they have genetic makeup then this is would make them a human very close to conception but also if someone has qualities of a person when they are capable of rational thought foetuses wouldn’t be classed as a person with no right to life. If the right to life is the most important factor in deciding if someone is then other factors would have to be taken into consideration when looking at abortion. For example; the doctrine of Double
As the day we came into this world, we are secured to be treated with respect and granted freedom. Although parents have the rights to speak in their children's lives, it is wrong for them to manipulate and control every aspect of their lives. If our parents’ actions become excessively intolerable, it should be our right to demonstrate against such power and shut them down, to the benefit of the children. The history of our nefarious parents calls for independence from such overpowering power. To prove our arguments, let our facts be submitted, they have told us to challenge ourselves to take Honors and Advanced Placement courses to improve our grades, but constantly nagging us for having too much homework.
The question really is why the parents would be held responsible for the crimes or actions of their children. People who disagree with me will say that since the parents are responsible for the child that they are responsible for the child’s actions. What I say to that is, parents should not be held responsible for their children’s actions and/or crimes because the parents cannot control every decision of their minor children. A parent can teach a child to do the right thing but that does not mean the child will always do the right thing. A parent cannot control everything that their child does.