quick clicks

preconception articles

preconception q&a

community & groups

research baby names

prepare a birth plan

content channels

ip channel rss feeds

read birth stories

read parenting stories

recommended books

e-newsletters

safety recalls

ip diaries

ip store

mom of the month

dad of the month

editor's letter

letters to the editor

Choosing Assisted Reproduction

Social Emotional and Ethical Considerations

By Susan Lewis Cooper and Ellen Sarasohn Glazer

Until recently, a couple's right to procreate has rarely been questioned. However, because of the new reproductive technologies, the question has arisen about whether the right to procreate includes the right to procreate using available technology and/or donor gametes or a host uterus. Many experts in the field, including John Robertson, a U. S. attorney/ethicist specializing in the field of reproductive technology, argue for procreative liberty, asserting that since the United States Constitution affords people the right to procreate coitally, it also gives individuals the right to procreate non-coitally. Robertson believes that having children satisfies basic biologic, social, and psychological drives for many people and that "noncoital reproduction should thus be constitutionally protected to the same extent as is coital reproduction, with the state having the burden of showing severe harm if the practice is unrestricted."

Those who believe in procreative liberty would agree, however, that although the law gves people the right to reproduce, it does not give people the right to parent the children they reproduce if they are deemed unfit. Unfortunately there are many instances in which the State, acting in the best interest of a child, removes that child from it's home because the child is determined to be at risk. Furthermore, not everyone is eligible to become a parent through adoption. Several states have outlawed private adoptions and require parents to "pass" a homestudy conducted by a licensed social worker before they can legally adopt a child. Thus the purpose of the law is to protect children from harm -- both physical and psychological -- and the duty of the State is to advocate for the welfare of children. The question here is whether or not someone should be advocating for the rights of children who are not yet born or conceived, and whether we can know -- even prior to conception -- whether a child will be psychologically harmed as a result of the circumstances of its conception or birth.

Post As:
Enter your comment below:
Title
Comment Text
CAPTCHA
Please note that any comments submitted become the property of Disney Family / iParenting and can be edited and posted at our discrection.