Surrogate mothers and human enhancement dilemmas

ESSAY ASSIGNMENT 2 [Insert al Affiliation] Surrogate mothers Commercial surrogacy is unethical and unacceptable as it compromises the surrogate mother’s autonomy, treats children as commodities and relegates women to a position of children industries. Anderson (1990) uses the concept of alienation to argue that during pregnancy, a mother develops love with the unborn baby hence reprising the baby psychologically affects the baby yet the remuneration provided is not enough to cater for emotional and psychological damage caused.
Anderson (1990) uses the concept of alienation to denounce commercial surrogacy. He argues that the bond that often develops between the unborn child and the mother is too strong to break through forcing the surrogate mother to repress the parental love she has for the child. Moreover, the mother becomes alienated from her labor as well as the child thus violating the mother’s right to consideration. Through the concept of alienation, Anderson (1990) further indicates that commercial surrogacy reduces pregnancy to a form of drudgery performed for money motives, which is against the societal norms.
What’s more, Anderson (1990) responds to the objection that the women sign a contract and agreed to be surrogate mothers by articulating that the contract does not guarantee the surrogate mother peace of mind as it merely treats moral transformation as any other economic exchange. Disparagingly, the surrogate agency strives to strike the best deal while leaving the surrogate mother in a position that she can hardly protect and/or serve her interests. Moreover, the woman might have signed the contract out of desperation and vulnerability, a factor which exposes her to exploitation by surrogate agency hence mothers should be allowed to decide what to do with the pregnancy, and surrogate contracts should not be enforceable (Anderson, 1990).
Human enhancement
Biotechnology is often used in enhancing human nature. However, the entire concept is often contentious with proponents and critics articulating various reasons for and against the use of biotechnology in enhancing the nature of human beings. Buchanan (2009) responds to the objection of using biotechnology to enhance the nature of human beings by accentuating that people possess some characteristics that are not always ideal whereas Parens (2005) provides a context-specific of female Viagra to indicate why biotechnological enhancements are not always viable.
Human beings, from a philosophical standpoint, consist of dispositions that shape their behaviors. Among these dispositions or features, some are desirable whereas others are detrimental or rather unattractive. While many scholars condemn enhancement on the basis that it always destroy or alter human nature, Buchanan (2009) responds by articulating that there is no evocative reason or evidence that eliminating some bad qualities in human beings endanger the good qualities. While there is no a clear cut between the good and bad characteristics, Buchanan (2009) asserts that human beings perceive some characteristics as ideal and purely human due to their egocentric nature. Apparently, a principled objection to enhancement is an opportunistic demurral on grounds of egotism rather than morals whereas a context-specific objection to enhancement considers the prevailing situation and offers moral reasons for the demurral. Parens (2005) provides the “ female Viagra” as an example of a context-specific objection. He objects the use of “ female Viagra” as it does not generate intimacy to bridge the gap between arousal and desire and that its use will only make the woman live a happy life while missing an essential part of life; the ability to be intimate (Parens, 2005). Sadly, Parens (2005) disregards the fact that the Viagra would improve the reproductive health of women.
Anderson, E. (1990). Is Women’s Labor a Commodity? Philosophy and Public Affairs 19: 1: 71-92.
Buchanan, A. (2009). Human Nature and Enhancement. Journal of Bioethics. Malden USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Parens, E. (2005). Authenticity and Ambivalence: Toward Understanding the Enhancement Debate. Hastings Center Report. doi: 10. 1353/hcr. 2005. 0067