Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 35 (6):421-440 (2014)

Authors
Melissa Moschella
Catholic University of America
Abstract
The dominant philosophical view of gamete donation as morally permissible rests on two premises: parental obligations are triggered primarily by playing a causal role in procreation, not by genetic ties, and those obligations are transferable—that is, they are obligations to make adequate provision for the child’s needs, not necessarily to raise the child oneself. Thus while gamete donors are indeed agent causes of the children that their donation helps to bring into existence, most think that donors’ obligations are discharged insofar as they know that competent others intend to care for those children. In this article, I call into question this dominant view by challenging both of its premises. Challenging the first premise, I argue that genetic parenthood is what primarily triggers parental obligations. Challenging the second premise, I claim that those obligations are non-transferable—i.e., that they are obligations not simply to ensure that someone will raise one’s genetic child, but to raise that child oneself . The implication of my argument is that gamete donation is inherently wrong insofar as it involves acquiring non-transferable obligations that one has no intention of fulfilling
Keywords Reproductive technologies  Parental obligations  Gamete donation  In vitro fertilization  Artificial insemination  Children’s rights  Animalism  Special obligations
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11017-014-9314-4
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 58,880
External links

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

Reasons and Persons.Joseph Margolis - 1986 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 47 (2):311-327.
The Right to Parent One's Biological Baby.Anca Gheaus - 2012 - Journal of Political Philosophy 20 (4):432-455.
Animalism and the Varieties of Conjoined Twinning.Tim Campbell & Jeff McMahan - 2010 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 31 (4):285-301.
The Right of Children to Be Loved.S. Matthew Liao - 2006 - Journal of Political Philosophy 14 (4):420–440.
What’s Love Got to Do with It? Why a Child Does Not Have a Right to Be Loved.Mhairi Cowden - 2012 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 15 (3):325-345.

View all 19 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Ectogestation and the Problem of Abortion.Christopher M. Stratman - forthcoming - Philosophy and Technology:1-18.
Biological Ties and Biological Accounts of Moral Status.Jake Monaghan - 2019 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 44 (3):355-377.
Parenthood and Procreation.Tim Bayne & Avery Kolers - forthcoming - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2014-10-31

Total views
38 ( #273,090 of 2,426,358 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #245,148 of 2,426,358 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes