Abstract
AbstractI consider the question of what moral obligations prospective parents owe to their future children. It is taken as an almost axiomatic premise of a wide range of philosophical arguments that prospective parents have a moral obligation to take such steps as ensuring their own financial stability or waiting until they are emotionally mature before conceiving. This is because it is assumed that parents have a moral obligation to lay the groundwork for their children's lives to go well. While at first glance such a premise seems benign, I will argue that when it is applied to arguments in assisted reproductive technology, as it is in Julian Savulescu's procreative beneficence argument or as it is in Daniel Groll's recent argument for open gamete donation, we see problems with this premise. Problems in Groll's argument also become apparent when it is scrutinized in connection with this premise.
Reference44 articles.
1. I will consider the strength of the word “ought” later in the paper but for now this notion of what a parent should do can be broadly understood as aprima facieobligation existing unless outweighed by stronger moral considerations.
2. I will consider the strength of the word “obligation” later in the paper but for now the folk moral obligation should be understood as a defeasible but still strong prima facieobligation.
3. On Our Obligation to Select the Best Children: A Reply to Savulescu
4. The Moral Status of Children
5. Conceiving People