My thoughts on Jeremy bentham's view about IVF
From a utilitarian's point of view, IVF would provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. By using the hedonic calculus, the uses and impacts of IVF result in a highly positive number of fifteen, certainly meaning that due to Jeremy Bentham's theory IVF is morally right. I agree to a great extent that IVF should be used due to the results from the hedonic calculus, because I believe that if a couple is unable to produce a baby, IVF is a sustainable option that will provide the couple and families of the couple with a great amount of happiness, as using IVF is an alternative to producing a baby by not reproducing by sexual intercourse. If a couple cannot conceive a child, they should turn to IVF to create a long lasting pleasure in the future is a child is successfully gained. However, I disagree to the use if IVF because according to Bentham's point of view, actions should be performed to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number, however, because the successful rates of IVF is on average only 35%, there is a large chance that the process of IVF will not successfully work for the couple using this method to reproduce, meaning it may disappoint the users therefore not providing the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. The emotional pain of a failure in IVF will affect the people who have used IVF, therefore meaning that the chance of pleasure is uncertain, which I believe is a negative of the uses of IVF. However, I agree with Jeremy Bentham that the intensity and duration of a couple having a child due to IVF if they are unable to conceive a child naturally will result in the greatest happiness for the greatest number, because the parents will gain many pleasures from the child such as watching them grow up and having a family. Overall, I agree with Jeremy Bentham and his theory that IVF is a morally right method to obtain a child, because, by weighing up all the factors, IVF will provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
My Thoughts on immauel kant's view about IVF
Immanuel Kant believes that IVF should be used if it is the only method of conceiving a child that would produce the greatest amount of love for the baby. However, Kant disagrees with IVF because in the process of producing a child you create and then destroy embryos, which is not morally correct. Furthermore, Kant would object to IVF because this method of producing a child allows a child to be produced in a way that God did not design us to reproduce, as the child is not conceived naturally. I agree with Kant that if IVF is the only method that will cause a couple to love their child to a great extent, it should be used, because otherwise a human life would be produced that would not obtain the maximum love it could receive. I believe that any child should be brought into the human world with a great amount of love from their parents, and any method to obtain a child with the greatest amount of love should be used. However, I disagree with Kant that IVF should be used because it is not the natural way to conceive a baby, because, although God expected humans to reproduce by sexual intercourse, science is developing through the ages and new methods for different things are being developed as time goes on because as humans we a continuously evolving species, meaning that due to this, our methods of reproducing will develop due to our discoveries. Therefore, I believe that we should not 'follow the rules' and reproduce only in the way that God expects us too, because as our species evolves new methods of things appear such as using IVF, which will benefit society further. Additionally, I disagree with Immanuel Kant because by using IVF, although we are creating and then destroying embryos, if the process had not taken place at all no life would have been provided from that sperm and that egg, because the fusing would not have taken place anyway. This therefore means that although we are creating and destroying embryos, without using IVF the embryos would have been given a life at all, meaning that this factor of the process does not affect whether IVF is morally tight. Although, as a whole, I disagree with Immaunel Kant's views on IVF, because I believe that it is a morally right way of producing a child, that includes a different process to the normal method of conception.
My thoughts about joseph fletcher's view about IVF
Joseph Fletcher would use IVF because he believed that conception by laboratory control is more human than conception by sexual intercourse. Furthermore, Joseph Fletcher would agree to the use of IVF, if the couple using this process have the best interests of using it for the maximum benefit, by therefore demonstrating agape love and performing actions that would be of the best interests to the child. I disagree with Joseph Fletcher’s reason explaining that conception by laboratory control is more human than conception by sexual intercourse, because, I believe that the most natural way to conceive a child is by the way God expects us too, as this is more human than producing an embryo in a laboratory. God expects us to reproduce by the fusing of the egg and sperm inside a woman’s womb, and as this is the most common way to reproduce, as since the beginning of the human race we have reproduced via sexual intercourse, I firmly believe that using IVF to produce babies is not more human than conception by sexual intercourse. On the other hand, if agree with Joseph Fletcher that IVF should be used if the couple using this process have the greatest intentions of providing the maximum benefits for the baby and for other families and relatives, because, otherwise, the child produced may grow up in a harsh environment that may not benefit her lifestyle in any way. The couple using IVF should willingly want to provide the best needs for their child in order to sacrifice the destruction of one or more embryos that would have been created in this process, because otherwise the child that is produced may not lead a fulfilling and gratifying life which may not benefit society at all. Therefore, I disagree with Joseph Fletcher that conception by laboratory control is more human than conception by sexual intercourse, however I agree with him that the baby produced from IVF should only be conceived if the couple want to provide their child with the greatest needs in the future.
My thoughts about Thomas Aquinas' view about IVF
Thomas Aquinas’ natural law theory would object to the use of IVF because the process is not natural, as the embryo is produced outside a woman’s womb, and because during the process embryos need to be destroyed, which is not protecting the innocent lives of the living embryos that could, if not destroyed, become valued members of our society. Furthermore, the Catholic Church, which shares some principles with the natural law theory, objects to the use of IVF because this process holds the idea of destroying life. Aquinas would also disagree with IVF because it means that humans will produce babies in the way that is different to how God provided humans with the abilities to reproduce, due to the fact that the embryo is made outside the womb. I agree with the natural law theory that IVF is not a 'natural' method to reproduce, however, I believe that just because of this reason it should not mean that IVF should not be allowed to take place. This alternative reason to reproducing babies is a method that has developed due to the progress in scientific research, that, although is not the natural way to conceive a child, can still be used if a couple is unable to produce a baby. Therefore, I agree with Thomas aquinas that IVF is not a natural process, however, I believe that this should not mean that it should be unavailable for people to use. Due to scientific research, humans are able to use this sustainable method to reproduce, which, I believe, will benefit our society to a great extent because this method will open up doors to other discoveries that could possibly be made in the future. IVF can allow couples to reproduce if they are infertile, and this method should be used for the maximum possible use in our world, rather than be discriminated because it is not a natural process. This reason also explains why I disagree with Aquinas' view that IVF should not be used because it does not follow the rules of how God would like humans to reproduce, because, although this is the case, this reason should not stop humans from developing scientific methods further. Furthermore, I disagree with the Catholic Church that IVF should not be used because it kills live embryos, because, although this does take place, the embryos would not have been created in the first place if the process of IVF had not been taken place, therefore meaning that even if IVF was used or not, the destroyed embryos would not have created. This therefore proves that IVF does not destroy innocent lives, but produces a life that would have not existed if the process of IVF had not taken place to begin with. To conclude, to a great extent I disagree with Thomas Aquinas' natural law theory, however, I do agree that IVF is not a natural process.
My Overall Opinion
Overall, from gathering all my thoughts about the views of Jeremy Bentham, Immaunel Kant, Joseph Fletcher and Thomas Aquinas, I firmly believe that IVF is morally right and should be used as an alternative option to producing a baby. This is because IVF produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number, meaning that as a whole I agree with Jeremy Bentham's view about IVF. I also believe that IVF is morally right because it is a way of conceiving a child that has a higher fertility rate than normal successful births, meaning that the couple using this process will receive a great amount of happiness as well as the people supporting the couple, demonstrating agape love which agrees to Joseph Fletcher's views about IVF. Agreeing furthermore to Joseph Fletcher, I believe that IVF is a morally right process if it is the only method that will provide the child being born with the greatest amount of love and care from their parents, as otherwise the child may not experience and receive the best intentions they are willingly right to claim, proving that IVF should be used if this is the only method of conception that will allow the child to gaining the maximum benefits that can be provided. However, I believe that IVF is an unnatural process of reproducing. This means I agree with Thomas Aquinas' view about IVF, as he strongly believed that IVF was not natural because the embryo is produced outside the womb, however, although I agree with this opinion I do not believe that IVF should then be demolished as a whole. Yes, the process if different to how God intended us to reproduce, however, this method is a new, sustainable change to ways in which humans can reproduce, which has been produced due to development in scientific research as humans have evolved. Therefore, humans should use this method of reproduction as an advantage, rather than considering it as immoral because it does not follow our natural rules of how to reproduce. This opinion of mine disagrees to Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant, because although IVF is a different method to conceiving a child, the process is a sustainable method that can provide infertile couples with a great amount of happiness in their future lives. Moreover, to a small extent, I agree with Immanuel Kant and Thomas Aquinas that IVF is not morally right because it creates and then destroys lives which, as humans, we not not have the power to undertake, however, I believe that this reason should not grudge against the use of IVF. This is because although embryos are created and destroyed, without the process of IVF taking place at all, these embryos would have not existed therefore meaning that either way those destroyed embryos would not have lived for a great amount of time, proving that instead of embryos being created and destroyed in the process of IVF, a new life is being born, that will cause families to rejoice a the beginning of the life of this baby, proving that IVF babies will benefit the world to a great extent. Therefore, from weighing up all the points about whether IVF is morally right or not, I believe that IVF is morally right because it is an alternative process to conceiving a child other than sexual intercourse that is sustainable and that will produce a positive impact on society.