This thesis argues that infertile prospective parents have a moral obligation to adopt rather than pursue ARTs (Assisted Reproductive Technology). The first chapter presents the negative argument against the common desire among prospective parents for a genetically related child. After refuting the five most promising reasons for wanting a biological child, I show that the burden of proof lies with defenders of ARTs to justify their use. In the second chapter I make the moral case in favour of adoption. By drawing an analogy to a standard and incontrovertible duty to aid case, I argue that infertile prospective parents have a duty to adopt. The final chapter justifies limiting the scope of my argument to the infertile. I argue that unlike fertile parents, the infertile who elect to pursue ARTs are clearly willing and able to assume additional costs in order to have a child. Consequently, there is a relevant difference between these two groups that justifies focusing on the latter. / Thesis (Master, Philosophy) -- Queen's University, 2012-09-10 10:40:14.214
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:LACETR/oai:collectionscanada.gc.ca:OKQ.1974/7449 |
| Date | 10 September 2012 |
| Creators | Teeple Hopkins, MORGAN |
| Contributors | Queen's University (Kingston, Ont.). Theses (Queen's University (Kingston, Ont.)) |
| Source Sets | Library and Archives Canada ETDs Repository / Centre d'archives des thèses électroniques de Bibliothèque et Archives Canada |
| Language | English, English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
| Rights | This publication is made available by the authority of the copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research and may not be copied or reproduced except as permitted by the copyright laws without written authority from the copyright owner. |
| Relation | Canadian theses |
Page generated in 0.0013 seconds