Fairchild 1

Savannah Fairchild
English 4H
Mrs. DeBock
13 October 2015
Infertile couples, for the longest time, have been out of luck when it came to trying to
make a baby. Tests and experiments have been done in order to resolve the problems for infertile
males and females. At first it was an exciting new discovery to reveal the development of
alternative ways for infertile couples to conceive a baby. However, over time, some people are
starting to believe that certain solutions are causing ethical tensions among people across the
globe. Such controversial tensions include in vitro fertilization, prenatal genetic diagnosis, and
genetic selection. These three procedures are looked at as scientists infringing on their
boundaries of what is acceptable and what is not. In vitro fertilization, prenatal diagnosis, and
genetic selection should be considered unethical because they are unnatural, create too big of a
hierarchical gap, and creates concerns for the future.
Many feel that in vitro fertilization is a common and natural way of solving the problem
of infertility. When a couple becomes infertile, they have to go through several steps to figure out
the root of the problem: experiment and get tests and bloodwork done, establish a step by step
plan, and hopefully reach a solution. However, an in vitro fertilization specialist is not the first or
most common doctor an infertile couple will visit (Fullick 11). Before in vitro fertilization was a
feasible option for infertile couples, a multiple of other options were available. For example,
fertility drugs, eliminating harmful habits such as drinking, smoking, eating a bad diet, or being
in the wrong weight class. Fertility drugs have been proven to work remarkably; which is why

Fairchild 2
they are included in the in vitro fertilization process. If one undergoes in vitro fertilization, an
egg is removed from the females ovary and placed in a petri dish. Sperm is removed from the
males testes and is mixed in the petri dish with the womans egg. After mixing the sperm and
egg, the hopefully fertilized egg is placed back into the womans uterus. Normally a child has
always been conceived through sexual intercourse between a male and a female. A child is not
naturally created by the mixing of sperm and eggs in a plastic and/or glass container. Even when
in vitro fertilization was being introduced, people were still unhappy with what they saw. They
perceived it as unnatural tampering with nature (Fullick 19). It is understood that in vitro
fertilization is a beneficial and hopeful alternative for those who are unable to bear children;
however, it is unnatural and sparks many controversial questions. An abundance of potential
advances can come with in vitro fertilization. A major concerning advance is prenatal genetic
diagnosis, or PGD. PGD allows for the fertilized egg to be screened and from there one can see
the DNA of the egg. Currently, it is said that PGD is only used to detect hereditary diseases in the
egg. Nevertheless, however, prenatal genetic diagnosis can also be used for prenatal selection of
character traits. With the possibility of in vitro fertilization and prenatal genetic diagnosis,
genetic selection is plausible and growing more likely to occur. Anyone could argue that
selecting an eggs traits before the birth of the child is highly unethical and unnatural. One could
also argue that scientists are playing the role of God since they have come up with a way of
allowing the parents to select their idea of the perfect child. As stated by Long, Others
[infertile couples undergoing in vitro fertilization] may use the technique to select traits that
would give their children advantages over others. It is unnatural to conceive a child through
mixing an egg and sperm in a container outside of the womb because our bodies were not created
to make a child in that way.

Fairchild 3
In vitro fertilization is a costly procedure. On average, in vitro fertilization costs
anywhere between $12,000-$15,000, and that is just for the basics. If a couple wanted to get a
PGD screening, it would cost on average another $3,000. Another separate expense depends on
how you want the sperm and the egg to be fertilized. For example, a single sperm injected
directly into an egg could cost an additional fee of $1,000-$1,500 (IVF Costs - In Vitro
Fertilization Costs). With this being said, in vitro fertilization and genetic screening are only
available to those of a wealthy, high-class background. Most citizens in the United States cannot
afford to spend $12,000 on an egg let alone a citizen of a third world country. Due to the expense
of the procedure, and the fact that most insurance companies do not cover IVF or PGD, middle
and lower class citizens will never be able to have access to these two experiments. For the
reason of expenses, if a couple were to use in vitro fertilization as a way to select specific traits
for their child, an inferior race will most likely be created. High class citizens will be able to
pick their babys eye color, hair color, height, intellectual ability, athletic capability, personality
traits, and social traits. Couples participating in in vitro fertilization can also choose for their
fertilized egg to have certain tissue types so he/she can serve as a donor for a sibling (The Need
to Regulate Designer Babies). Genetic screening could cause a serious problem and/or threat to
our society. While in vitro fertilization, prenatal genetic diagnosis, and genetic screening may not
be seen as bad things, they can be detrimental in the wrong hands. Babies can be created with the
only intention of creating an exceeding and more valuable race. The creation of a super human is
feasible due to the lack of regulations over the technology. The scientists claim that their goal
was to find out if genetic changes made to embryos can be passed on to daughter cells,
according to Shebaya. Scientists have the freedom to push these boundaries because the
technology is unfamiliarly new. Few rules exist for the procedures. Rules need to be put firmly

Fairchild 4
established and enforced in order to eliminate the misuse of genetic screening, in vitro
fertilization, and prenatal diagnosis.
Concerns for the future arise when discussing in vitro fertilization. In the process of in
vitro fertilization, several eggs are taken from the mother. However, usually only one egg is
implanted into the mothers uterus. This generates an important question: what happens with the
other eggs that were extracted from the female? Experts take the spare eggs and place them in a
cryogenic freezer. The embryos are mixed with a protective solution and are placed in straws
before freezing, and then they are placed in a freezing chamber where they are put into a metal
container and dropped into a liquid nitrogen solution (Wulffson). Due to the lack of policies
guiding IVF in America, there have not been any set limits on the length of time an embryo can
be kept frozen. According to Ann Fullick, the frozen embryos have the chance to remain viable
for potentially 10,000 years. The scarcity of rules makes the process of freezing embryos
complicated and risky. For example, if a couple freezes an embryo and however many years
later, gets divorced, who does the embryo belong to? As these questions are proposed, social,
economic, and religious concerns arise also. Economically, the cost to freeze an embryo is not
terribly expensive but still too much for the average, low income American to afford. Social
concerns emerge when discussing the issue of using the fertilized egg 100 years down the road.
If this were to happen, the fertilized egg would have no close relatives still alive and would
therefore be on their own in the world. Lastly, religious questions come about as well with the
morality of this idea and the concern for the soul of the embryo. Most cryogenic freezing
companies have closed down or ceased their operations due to the future economic risks that
come along with the procedure (Wulffson). Freezing embryos is severely controversial in all
aspects of life and therefore should be considered unethical.

Fairchild 5
In vitro fertilization, prenatal diagnosis, and genetic selection should be considered
unethical because they are unnatural, create too big of a hierarchical gap, and creates concerns
for the future. Human bodies were created with an already set up method of conceiving a child.
Removing an egg from a female and a sperm from a male and fertilizing the embryo in a glass
container is furthest from natural conception. Diagnosing an embryo to discover what diseases it
might be carrying or to alter the eggs genetic traits is most definitely classified as unethical.
Scientists are looked at as infringing upon boundaries in religious and social aspects. In
conclusion, giving couples the opportunity to save viable eggs for potentially 10,000 years is
incredibly risky and needs regulations and guidelines.

Fairchild 6
Works Cited
Fullick, Ann. Test Tube Babies: In-vitro Fertilization. Chicago: Heinemann Library, 2002. Print.
"IVF Costs - In Vitro Fertilization Costs." IHR.com. Web. 8 Oct. 2015.
"IVF Costs - In Vitro Fertilization Costs." IHR.com. Web. 8 Oct. 2015.
Long, Heather. "Selecting a Child's Genetic Traits Will Create a Privileged Elite." Human
Genetics. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2014. Opposing
Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Designer Babies: The Ultimate Privileged Elite?" Guardian 9
July 2013. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 14 Sept. 2015.
"The Need to Regulate 'Designer Babies'." Designer Babies. Ed. Clayton Farris Naff. Detroit:
Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Rpt. from "The Need to Regulate 'Designer Babies,'."
Scientific American (May 2009). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 14 Sept. 2015.
Shebaya, Sirine. "Expert Opinions Should Guide Designer Baby Technologies." Designer
Babies. Ed. Clayton Farris Naff. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Rpt. from
"Are 'Designer Babies' on the Horizon?" Science Progress. 2008. Opposing Viewpoints in
Context. Web. 14 Sept. 2015.
Wulffson, Robin L. "Cryonics." Applied Science: Technology. Ed. Donald R. Franceschetti.
Hackensack: Salem, 2013. n. pag. Salem Online. Web. 12 Oct. 2015.