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)|
References found in this work BETA
Citations of this work BETA
Better Never to Have Been?: The Unseen Implications. [REVIEW]Joseph Packer - 2011 - Philosophia 39 (2):225-235.
Similar books and articles
The Concept of Harm Reconceived: A Different Look at Wrongful Life. [REVIEW]E. Haavi Morreim - 1988 - Law and Philosophy 7 (1):3 - 33.
Criminalising Fabricated Images of Child Pornography:A Matter of Harm or Morality?Suzanne Ost - unknown
Virtual Child Pornography: The Eroticization of Inequality.Neil Levy - 2002 - Ethics and Information Technology 4 (4):319-323.
Conception and the Concept of Harm.E. Haavi Morreim - 1983 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 8 (2):137-158.
Parental Tort Liability for Direct Preimplantation Genetic Interventions: Technological Harms, the Social Model of Disability, and Questions of Identity.Kirsten Rabe Smolensky - unknown
Wrestling with the Future: Should We Test Children for Adult-Onset Genetic Conditions?Cynthia B. Cohen - 1998 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8 (2):111-130.
Should Cloning Be Banned for the Sake of the Child?Helga Kuhse - 2001 - Poiesis and Praxis 1 (1):17-33.
Rethinking Procreation: Why It Matters Why We Have Children.Mianna Lotz - 2011 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (2):105-121.
Identity, Harm, and the Ethics of Reproductive Technology.Janet Malek - 2006 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31 (1):83 – 95.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads13 ( #347,370 of 2,154,063 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #398,005 of 2,154,063 )
How can I increase my downloads?