This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
In this paper I consider the possibility of using PGD to select the sexual orientation of offspring. After considering five potential objections, I conclude that parents should be permitted to use PGD to choose the sexual orientation of their children.
In this paper I wish to focus on the possibility of using PGD to select the sexual orientation of offspring: If a safe and reliable genetic test were ever to become available, should parents be allowed to use PGD to choose the sexual orientation of their children?
Utilizing PGD to select the sexual orientation of offspring will presumably be subject to at least five objections. The first objection that can be raised might be as follows: PGD is a medical procedure designed to detect genetic disorders. Since homosexuality is not a disease, PGD should not be employed to ensure the birth of heterosexual children.
This is a familiar objection in debates over PGD. However, as familiar as it may be, it is certainly not a persuasive one. We have already become accustomed to a medical system in which physicians often provide services that have no direct medical benefit but that do have great personal value for the individuals seeking it.
But this claim is simply untenable. Granting its citizens a right to use PGD to ensure the birth of heterosexual children is not the same as placing them under a duty to use PGD to ensure the birth of heterosexual children.
Only a state coercing its citizens into using PGD to prevent homosexual offspring would be open to the charge of discrimination.
A third objection might assert that, even though it would not be discrimination on the part of the state, it would certainly be discrimination on the part of the prospective parents if they were to use PGD to prevent the birth of homosexual children.
This argument is similarly misguided, though. Preferring a heterosexual over a homosexual child does not in itself in any way betray a negative judgement about the value of gay and lesbian individuals.
Still, most parents using PGD to select the sexual orientation of their offspring would probably do so simply because they wish to see their children getting married, building a family and having children of their own.
And the desire to have children who share the same sexual orientation as oneself is certainly not a morally objectionable interest.
A fourth objection may be that using PGD to ensure the birth of heterosexual children will impede the cause of the Gay and Lesbian Rights Movement as it is likely to lead to a gradual decline of the homosexual population. More precisely, it could be argued that a decrease in the number of gay and lesbian persons will inevitably cause a decrease in the public support for gay and lesbian people.
This is of course a factual claim for which empirical data must be marshalled. Given the burdens and expenses of the procedure, it is very unlikely that PGD will ever considerably reduce the number of homosexual individuals. More importantly, reducing the number of gays and lesbians does not necessarily imply a reduced concern for the cause of homosexual people, as is evidenced by the case of disabled persons.
Although the number of people born with disabilities has decreased, the support for people with disabilities has increased.
The Controversy of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and Its Effect on Social Morality. 1, words. 6 pages. The Properties of H2O and Carbon. words. 3 pages. A Summary and Response on the Evolutionary Biological Implications of Human Genetic Engineering, an Article by Russell Powell. One additional controversial point about PGD is its use in sex selection of the embryo. Twenty years ago, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) issued a report stating that while preimplantation sex selection is appropriate to avoid the birth of children with genetic disorders, it is not acceptable when used solely for nonmedical . A key breakthrough in modern laboratory medicine, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) detects genetic abnormalities that cause birth defects or fatal illnesses, allowing embryos to be chosen before being implanted into a uterus, thereby avoiding selective pregnancy terminations. While this technology provides a lot of answers, its increasing .
Hence, it is far from being obvious that using PGD to ensure the birth of heterosexual offspring would inevitably worsen the situation of homosexual people.
A fifth objection might point to the fact that PGD generally implies discarding embryos. Whether or not this objection is viable entirely depends on the moral status accorded to embryos.
The purpose of individual rights is the moral and legal protection of fundamental interests. Since embryos are too rudimentary in development to have interests there is simply no basis to grant them rights. Since the desire to have children of a particular sexual orientation is a morally legitimate reason, creating and destroying embryos of the undesired sexual orientation would certainly be justified.
Since none of the potential objections stated are valid, parents should clearly be allowed to use PGD to choose the sexual orientation of their children.One additional controversial point about PGD is its use in sex selection of the embryo.
Twenty years ago, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) issued a report stating that while preimplantation sex selection is appropriate to avoid the birth of children with genetic disorders, it is not acceptable when used solely for nonmedical .
CONTROVERSY Extending preimplantation genetic diagnosis: medical and non-medical uses New uses of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to screen embryos prior to transfer raise ethical, legal, and policy issues that deserve close attention.
Extensions for prospective offspring,its actual impact is likely to. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) involves testing for specific genetic conditions prior to the implantation of an embryo in the uterine wall.
This form of genetic screening has been made possible by the growth of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) technology, which allows for the early stages of development to occur in a laboratory dish rather than in . The future growth of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) will depend on refinements in genetic knowledge and genetic analysis of blastomeres.
Equally important, however, is an acceptance of the ethical legitimacy of parents using technologies to select genetic traits of offspring.
Amniocentesis is usually done when a woman is between 14 and 16 weeks attheheels.comlantation genetic diagnosis: done in conjunction with IVF. In vitro fertilization mature eggs are collected from the ovaries and fertilized by sperm in a lab.
Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis - Rebecca Koop Prenatal Diagnostic Tests and the Social, Legal, and Ethical Implications - Sara McLean Breast Cancer Susceptibility Screening - Roxy Mickelson.