Rethinking the moral permissibility of gamete donation
- 389 Downloads
The dominant philosophical view of gamete donation as morally permissible (when practiced in the right way) rests on two premises: (1) parental obligations are triggered primarily by playing a causal role (as agent cause) in procreation, not by genetic ties, and (2) 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 (unless one is incompetent). 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.
KeywordsReproductive technologies Parental obligations Gamete donation In vitro fertilization Artificial insemination Children’s rights Animalism Special obligations
I am grateful to Princeton’s James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions for the post-doctoral fellowship during which I began working on this article, and to the James Madison fellows, along with Robert George and members of Princeton’s Philosophy Department, who offered helpful feedback at my presentation of an early draft. I would also like to thank Michael Gorman for his assistance in reworking the first section of the article, as well as two referees for their detailed comments on the penultimate draft.
- 2.Nelson, James. 1991. Parental obligations and the ethics of surrogacy: A causal perspective. Public Affairs Quarterly 5(1): 49–61.Google Scholar
- 3.Callahan, Daniel. 1992. Bioethics and fatherhood. Utah Law Review 3: 735–746. Google Scholar
- 4.Pruss, Alexander. 2013. One body: An essay in Christian sexual ethics. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
- 6.Austin, Michael. 2007. Conceptions of parenthood. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
- 9.Hubin, Donald. 2003. Daddy dilemmas: Untangling the puzzles of paternity. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 13: 29–80.Google Scholar
- 13.Olson, Eric. 1997. The human animal: Personal identity without psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 15.Lee, Patrick, and Robert George. 2008. Body-self dualism in contemporary ethics and politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 20.Parfit, Derek. 1984. Reasons and persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 21.LaFollette, Hugh. 1996. Personal relationships: Love, identity and morality. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- 23.Jeske, Diane. 1998. Families, friends, and special obligations. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 28: 527–556.Google Scholar
- 24.Gheaus, Anca. 2012. The right to parent one’s biological baby. The Journal of Political Philosophy 20(4): 432–455.Google Scholar
- 25.Moore, Kristin Anderson, Susan M. Jekielek, and Carol Emig. 2002. Marriage from a child’s perspective: How does family structure affect children, and what can we do about it? Child Trends Research Brief, June. http://www.childtrends.org/files/MarriageRB602.pdf. Accessed October 16, 2014.
- 27.Daly, M., and M. Wilson. 2007. “Cinderella effect” controversial? A case study of evolution minded research and critiques thereof. In Foundations of evolutionary psychology, ed. C. Crawford, and D. Krebs, 383–400. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- 29.Haslanger, Sally. 2009. Family, ancestry and self: What is the moral significance of biological ties? Adoption and Culture 2: 91–122.Google Scholar
- 32.Garbarino, James. 1999. Lost boys. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
- 33.Dozier, Mary, and Michael Rutter. 2008. Challenges to the development of attachment relationships faced by young children in foster and adoptive care. In Handbook of attachment, 2nd ed, ed. Jude Cassidy and Phillip Shaver, 698–717. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- 34.Siegel, Deborah H., and Susan Livingston Smith. 2012. Openness in adoption. The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. http://adoptioninstitute.org/old/publications/2012_03_OpennessInAdoption.pdf. Accessed October 16, 2014.
- 35.Clark, Karen, Norval Glenn, and Elizabeth Marquardt. 2010. My daddy’s name is donor: A new study of young adults conceived through sperm donation. New York: Institute for American Values. http://americanvalues.org/catalog/pdfs/Donor_FINAL.pdf. Accessed October 29, 2014.