David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (5):491 – 516 (2005)
An objection often is raised against the use of reproductive technology to create "nontraditional families," as in ovum donation for postmenopausal women or postmortem artificial insemination. The objection states that conceiving children in such circumstances is harmful to them because of adverse features of these nontraditional families. A similar objection is raised when parents, through negligence or willful disregard of risks, create children with serious genetic diseases or other developmental handicaps. It is claimed that such reproduction harms the children who are created. In reply to this Harm to the Child Argument, it has been pointed out that the procreative acts that supposedly harm the child are the very acts that create the child. This reply has been developed into an argument that, in most of the types of cases under consideration, creating the child does not harm her. This reply, the No Harm Argument, has been stated in three main ways, and it is one of the most misunderstood arguments in bioethics. This paper examines the main rebuttals that have been made to the No Harm Argument and argues that none of them is successful.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Joseph Packer (2011). Better Never to Have Been?: The Unseen Implications. [REVIEW] Philosophia 39 (2):225-235.
Carson Strong (2008). Cloning and Adoption: A Reply to Levy and Lotz. Bioethics 22 (2):130–136.
Robert Sparrow (2013). Queerin' the PGD Clinic. Journal of Medical Humanities 34 (2):177-196.
Benjamin E. Hippen (2005). Introduction. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (5):443 – 447.
Similar books and articles
E. Haavi Morreim (1988). The Concept of Harm Reconceived: A Different Look at Wrongful Life. [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 7 (1):3 - 33.
Janet Malek (2006). Identity, Harm, and the Ethics of Reproductive Technology. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31 (1):83 – 95.
Mianna Lotz (2011). Rethinking Procreation: Why It Matters Why We Have Children. Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (2):105-121.
Helga Kuhse (2001). Should Cloning Be Banned for the Sake of the Child? Poiesis and Praxis 1 (1):17-33.
Cynthia B. Cohen (1998). Wrestling with the Future: Should We Test Children for Adult-Onset Genetic Conditions? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8 (2):111-130.
Kirsten Rabe Smolensky, Parental Tort Liability for Direct Preimplantation Genetic Interventions: Technological Harms, the Social Model of Disability, and Questions of Identity.
E. Haavi Morreim (1983). Conception and the Concept of Harm. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 8 (2):137-158.
Neil Levy (2002). Virtual Child Pornography: The Eroticization of Inequality. Ethics and Information Technology 4 (4):319-323.
Elizabeth Harman (2009). Harming as Causing Harm. In. In M. A. Roberts & D. T. Wasserman (eds.), Harming Future Persons. Springer Verlag. 137--154.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #155,891 of 1,099,037 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #175,277 of 1,099,037 )
How can I increase my downloads?