Designating Who Can Have Children - Essay Example

For instance, it divorces procreation derived from the act of sexual congress. If accepted, this would defile the child’s human right to live. Typically, this would have a negative impact in the society since those who are denied the right to give birth may be socially rejected. Following this, the aim of this paper is to explore that the government should not have the right to designate who can have children based on genetically linked terminal disease. As mentioned earlier, there are Cons of designating who can have children.

First, this would eradicate procreation designed by God, hence, creating controversy among religions. To support this, Swarts (2009) argues that a baby is considered as God’s gift, and it is believed that everybody has a purpose behind a child’s birth. Swarts continues to argue that by designing who can have children is tampering with life, thus, acting against God who created the World. In effect, this is highly denounced by many religions. Choosing who can have children may lead to unwanted memories to the mother, and this may cause depression.

Those denied the rights to have children by the government may experience a feeling of guilt, which can turn out to be a lifetime burden. In response to this, Doak (2011) affirms that victims not selected to bear children may feel unwanted in society, which can result to a poor self image. In facts, it is believed that suicidal rates are high when an individual has poor self-image. Therefore, government hindering some individual from having children may increase suicidal cases. Allowing the government to designate who to have children may defile the child human right.

Rasko and Downes (1995) argue that when there is a line drawn on whom to have children or not, it violates human rights. As said earlier, every human being has the right to live whether in good condition or not. In short, choosing who can have children based on genetically linked terminal disease will tamper with human right to live. Government choosing who can have children may also have a negative impact in the society as a result of unreasonable fear and hatred towards the victim affected.

Those that are denied the rights to bear children may be socially rejected and referred as “Poor Gene”. With no doubt, the victims may be separated from the society for not having children in some parts of the world (Goldstein & Cecile, 2010). A research carried out by Goldstein and Cecile (2010) indicates that in most parts of the world, people with no children are looked down upon and often cast out from the society, thereby, creating a rift in the society. It stands out that designing who can have children or not may create discrimination, particularly when bearing children is viewed as a requirement in marriage.

Eventually, this may increase discrimination and victims perceived as less fortunate. However, if the government stays aside in determining who can give children or not, victims with genetic disorders may have a sense of belonging in the society as they are given a chance to chose either to have children or not. By so doing, it would prepare victims affected by genetically linked terminal disease to bear the consequences that are pertained with giving birth to a child with gene disorder. From my point of view, I believe it is