I. INTRODUCTION In her book “One Child – Do We Have a Right to More?” Sarah Conly contends that a one-child restriction on human reproduction is morally justifiable. My essay begins by describing Conly’s argument that our right to bodily control does not entail a right to have multiple children. Next, it discusses this one-child policy in the context of collective action problems. My essay also explores the work of Shelly Kagan and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, consequentialists who hold opposing views on our obligations to preserve our environment. Finally, the essay closes with my own reflections on the issue, in which I ultimately side with Kagan and Conly and conclude that, in the face of sufficiently dire consequences, we are in fact obligated to limit our reproduction. II. …show more content…
THE ONE-CHILD POLICY AND YOUR RIGHT TO BODILY CONTROL In Conly’s book, she addresses numerous challenges to her one-child policy, and of these challenges, some of the strongest stem from our right to control our bodies. If we have a right to full control over our bodies—and in most circumstances, it seems like we should—it may follow that we have the right to have as many children as we want. These rights can be established through many different moral claims, but in Conly’s view, there are three main grounds on which one could defend the right to complete bodily control: 1. Property: Our bodies are our property, and most of us agree that we have the right to do what we want with our property. 2. Autonomy: It is important to us that we are entitled to a sense of unrestricted mental and physical self-governance, so we should be allowed autonomous control of our bodies. 3. Equality: We expect to be treated equally with other people, and resent when government policies fail to give everyone equal
Anger and heated debate have long fueled the controversy over abortion. Whether pro-life or pro-choice, both sides of the argument are convinced of the righteousness of their beliefs. There is, however, some confusion surrounding the term “pro-choice” – it does not directly pertain to the spread and use of abortion, but rather, “pro-choicers” advocate the continued legalization of abortion in order to make the choice available and to ensure that women’s fundamental rights are not subjugated. The stance that abortion should be available has its roots in economic concerns, psychological evidence, moral dilemmas, and the Constitution.
...ns and the ethical and moral beliefs behind the issue will again challenge the control of many governments in their role in human reproduction.
Our culture has a stringent belief that creating new life if a beautiful process which should be cherished. Most often, the birth process is without complications and the results are a healthy active child. In retrospect, many individuals feel that there are circumstances that make it morally wrong to bring a child into the world. This is most often the case when reproduction results in the existence of another human being with a considerably reduced chance at a quality life. To delve even further into the topic, there are individuals that feel they have been morally wronged by the conception in itself. Wrongful conception is a topic of debate among many who question the ethical principles involved with the sanctity of human life. This paper will analyze the ethical dilemmas of human dignity, compassion, non-malfeasance, and social justice, as well the legal issues associated with wrongful conception.
In the essay “Population, Delusion and Reality,” Amartya Sen discusses two opposing approaches to population control. These two approaches are “collaboration” and “override” The collaboration approach calls for a voluntary choice as well as a collaborative solution to controlling the population growth. The collaborative approach relies on more choices for men and women, a more educated and rational decision on the part of both men and women, and an open arena for a more extensive discussion on such subjects. These men and women are able to make such rational decisions based on the opportunity to be more educated and with a sense of self-confidence when presented with the ability to do so by having public policies such as family planning, health care, bigger and better education facilities and a sense of economic well being. Our ability to solve problems by making rational and educated decisions seems like a better alternative than to forcing a resolution. The “override” approach works by means of legal or economic coercion, such as the means that China forces with their “one child policy.” With this approach, the government may deny individuals of job opportunities or deny housing. These people are left with no other choice but to follow along with what the government would want them to do.
Kuhse, H. and Singer, P. Bioethics: An Anthology. Malden, MA. Blackwell Publishing. 2006. Part II: Assisted Reproduction. Pence, G. The McCaughey Septuplets: God’s Will or Human Choice?, pages 87-88. Purdy, L. Surrogate Mothering: Exploitation or Empowerment?, pages 91-93. Hanscombe, G. The Right to Lesbian Parenthood, pages 104-107.
When looking at the development of abortion policy, it is clear that it has always been a subject of controversy. Campaigns for the legalisation of...
Over the course of the last century, abortion in the Western hemisphere has become a largely controversial topic that affects every human being. In the United States, at current rates, one in three women will have had an abortion by the time they reach the age of 45. The questions surrounding the laws are of moral, social, and medical dilemmas that rely upon the most fundamental principles of ethics and philosophy. At the center of the argument is the not so clear cut lines dictating what life is, or is not, and where a fetus finds itself amongst its meaning. In an effort to answer the question, lawmakers are establishing public policies dictating what a woman may or may not do with regard to her reproductive rights.
All authors consider reproductive rights inequality through a lens of class and race, and argue for changes in the way the United States addresses these problems. However, Roberts calls for broad changes on a social level along with institutional reforms. She states that, “true reproductive freedom requires a living wage, universal health care, and the abolition of prison,” (Roberts), which illustrates her desire for a large, foundational overhaul of American systems. This type of comprehensive change to address structural inequalities aligns with the goals of radical feminists who advocate for a complete overhaul of oppressive systems. Conversely, Ely and Dumas argue for changes within the legislation, primarily the repeal of laws which they consider to be the main oppressive force faced by vulnerable groups, which falls within the liberal feminist framework for enacting change within the established system. Additionally Ely and Dumas use the language of choice to uphold their argument, stating, “The power to choose whether to bear children is the fundamental premise of reproductive freedom.” (Ely and Dumas). Roberts disparages the rhetoric of choice used by many on the Left. Ultimately Ely and Dumas, and Roberts approach the same issue, reproductive justice, with different possible
Autonomy is defined by dictionary reference as the state or quality of self-governing, also known as th...
One of greatest moral issues facing society today is that of freedom. Freedom is a principle that this country was founded on at the start of its inception. Freedom is still a cause that requires our attention. The great debate on simple liberties such as the right to decide what happens to one’s body is still an issue that society has failed to resolve. It is a moral quandary that will continue to be discussed and a deliberated on as long as humankind are free moral agents with personal moral preferences. The question is do we allow our personal preferences to impede the decisions of other individuals? If we have the right to have our set of moral preferences do, other individuals deserve that same entitlement?
Many couples who cannot have their own children are patiently waiting for a child to be adopted, and abortions are taking away that opportunity from willing families. The other side of this controversy is called pro-choice. Pro-choice followers believe, as implied by the name, that a woman’s right to choose is more important than anything, even human life. The Roe vs Wade case of 1973 is the building block of their side of the argument, the ruling being “the right to privacy.” is enough protection to defend a woman’s reproductive rights (Roe v Wade 1973).
The permissibility of abortion has been a crucial topic for debates for many years. People have yet to agree upon a stance on whether abortion is morally just. This country is divided into two groups, believers in a woman’s choice to have an abortion and those who stand for the fetus’s right to live. More commonly these stances are labeled as pro-choice and pro-life. The traditional argument for each side is based upon whether a fetus has a right to life. Complications occur because the qualifications of what gives something a right to life is not agreed upon. The pro-choice argument asserts that only people, not fetuses, have a right to life. The pro-life argument claims that fetuses are human beings and therefore they have a right to life. Philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thomson, rejects this traditional reasoning because the right of the mother is not brought into consideration. Thomson prepares two theses to explain her reasoning for being pro-choice; “A right to life does not entail the right to use your body to stay alive” and “In the majority of cases it is not morally required that you carry a fetus to term.”
In 2000 the United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA) defined reproductive rights as "the basic rights of couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children; to have the information and means to do so; and to have the right to make decisions concerning reproduction, free of discrimination, coercion or violence."[1] Traditionally society defines reproductive rights in the context of one's being able to make decisions about his or her own reproduction; other individuals, unrelated to that person, were not considered as being involved in the decision. With the onset of in vitro fertilization (IVF) in 1978, reproductive processes have become more complicated. For example, in gestational surrogacy a surrogate mother, not genetically related to the embryo, is brought into the process of reproduction. This technique allows infertile couples to carry a child or children in the womb of a carrier, rather than in the womb of the biological mother.[2] As a result of this ethically controversial technology, society must modify its reproductive rights. In vitro fertilization (IVF) alone will not solve people's reproductive problems and protect everybody's rights. Society, therefore, must distinguish whose rights-the rights of biological parents or those of the surrogate mothers-should be protected.
Since the early 1970’s abortion has been an important issue to the United States (Tietze 1). The problem begins with whether it is the woman’s choice to keep or terminate her pregnancy or the government’s choice. When this problem happens, a woman loses her right as a person. Most women argue about this issue, but if you look at it, it is the woman’s body, and she should do with it as she pleases. I believe that if a woman, under the right circumstances, should be able to make her own choices in life and not be influenced by family or the government.
Our world is too small for our ever rapidly growing population. One day resources will run dry and vanish, which will bring death and loss to all nations on this planet. Many researchers and scientists have confirmed that the population will reach 10 billion by the end of the century and will continue to stream upward. There are many different ways in trying to decrease population to contain global warming and assist our environmental changes. The only way to steadily succeeding, families must be the regulators of their fertility and future. Environmentalism can head in a negative direction, which may result in population control and even anti-immigrant policies. Can the developing effort of ‘population integrity’ protect our world while recognizing birth moralities?