We see families such as the Gosselins or Octomom (very different situations) who have both used the in vitro fertilization methods in order to have kids. In the case of the Gosselins, Kate had PCOS (Polycystic ovary syndrome) which made it so she doesn't ovulate thus making children impossible and therefore ending that genetic line. As for Octomon well, she's single, had six previous children, and can have children naturally but didn't have a male to procreate with naturally therefore making her unfit. In comparing their different situations you can see each ones need for IVF, that then draws the question of ethics. Jon and Kate both had the standard amount of embryos implanted while Octomom had all of six or eight implanted. Two different people using the same new technology where the outcome resulted in children but the thoughts of two families could not be more different. With the power of the new technology we can have people who will abuse the use of the technology in circumstances where they aren't needed or where they did not have a stable mother-father relationship for their children.
By using this new technology to enhance reproductive abilities do you think that this goes along with nature or is it our way of trying to one up the system that has worked in terms of evolution and progression in human kind?
I enjoyed this post. I don't know whether or not I agree with IF or not. When used correctly or in "moderation (not Octomom style)" I think it can be beneficial. I do feel this goes against nature though. I feel we are changing the course of evolution in many ways. Healthcare in general goes against evolution, we can keep so many people alive that without intense procedures they would be dead. Right now, it seems like this is the best thing but in the long run are we in sync with evolution and nature? I'm not so sure.
ReplyDelete