Ethical Dilemmas Of Embryos: Taking Stem Cells In Everyday Life

1313 Words 5 Pages
Disability is a physical or mental disadvantage that limits a person’s senses and actions in everyday life. It requires the failure of functioning that impairs opportunity for human flourishing. Some disabilities do not reduce the incapacity of the person being able to flourish. There has been a widespread of an ugly attitude towards people who have the disability trait. People without disabilities are seen as somebody without imperfections, but someone engineered, as a human being should be. Disabilities involve limitation such as social, physical, and mental disorders for a human to develop. There is a tendency to judge a person based on their disabilities, then on their personality, which make people stay away from the public. Some parents …show more content…
Taking stem cells to save lives is an objectionable form of eugenics. Some critics describe this objection for the child to be treated only as means for stem cells. The ethical objection depends on what is at stake. If the child’s life were affected, the ethical objections would be justified. If the child is treated only for means, there is a violation of respect for the child. Due to the embryo not being able to consult with the decision, the respect for the autonomy is not accountable. The child’s interest should set restrictions on what the potential parents should contribute. This controversial case starts the debate on what we owe to our children. We owe them a promise; a more positive better life then we endure. Some justify their claims because of commitments to relationship while others justify their claims that everyone deserves recognition and respect. Those who oppose the use of embryos or pre-implantation due to the affects to the future generations believe that “some decisions that will probably make the world worse in a few generations (such as those that speed up climate change) will also mean that different people are alive than from those who would have been alive had we acted differently.”(Glover p. 45). However, those who accept the positive outcome of genetic enhancements to lower genetics believe people “will live if we choose the worse policy will not themselves be harmed by our choice. They will be glad to be alive, which they would not have been if we had chosen the better policy.”(Glover p. 45). Either opinion can justify that our children cannot approach us with failing to give them what we owed them. Old and new parents would want healthy lives for their children. They should consider the potential positive and negative effects about disabilities, “ for a child without disability is selfish, putting the desire to avoid difficulty and complication before the child’s need

Related Documents