New Reproduction Technologies :: essays research papers

During the debate on March 15, 2000 which discussed new reproductive technologies (NRTS) issues were raised regarding the positive and damaging effects of NRTS. Issues raised by the advocates of NRTS were skirt infertility, homosexuality, disease, and cloning. All of these factors raised were concerning the moral right ons of individuals who were unable to have children of their own with discover the financial aid 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 spell reproduction, quality control, generating waste products, and the rights of the pre-embryo. These issues suggest that by NRTS children were being commodified and the rights of the pre-embryo were being ignored. The debate generally focused on the rights of the indivi dual, man or woman, versus the rights of the unborn child. The debate was very interesting which led me to run into at the impact of NRTS at a nonher angle. After examining the issues raised in the debate I was left questioning why NRTS exist in the scratch line place? Whose interest do they serve? Who won/ bemused 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 line of descent? Social and Ethical Aspects of Reproductive Technology by Paul Lauritzen there 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 like to prove that no one has the moral right to take in 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, whatever individual actually &8220 removes 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 translation 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.