Roman Catholic Natural Law on Surrogacy
I believe that surrogacy is morally suspicious and that surrogacy contracts should not be enforceable. I am persuaded by the arguments of Lisa S. Cahill and her stance on surrogacy. Cahill follows the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Natural Law. According to RCNL, sex is a conjugal act with purpose of unity and procreation, and procreation is collaborative. Also, treating a person as a means to an end is always morally wrong. The unity of marriage is intended for reproduction, conceived between two people within the marriage. Surrogacy should not involve a third party to avoid dualism. These main points will be elaborated on in the context of an argument on surrogacy.
Cahill expresses a few main
…show more content…
I would have said that it was a generous and thoughtful act of kindness for a surrogate to be willing to help a couple bring a child into this world. I would have never thought deeply about some of the moral and ethical aspects of surrogacy, until now. I have been married for almost four years, and I believe in the unity of marriage and the idea of becoming one. After reading Cahill’s argument on surrogacy, and reflected on my own moral values, I immediately took a stance to agree with her. I believe that when it comes to a child, the best interest of the child should be a top priority. I am not a mother, but I am very passionate about children, and find their lives to be so precious. Parents should always have the child’s best interest in mind when making choices regarding their child’s life. A surrogate may be doing it as an act of kindness, and that may be her intention. However, I agree that surrogacy brings a dualistic element to the relationship. I know that as a married woman I would never hire a surrogate to bear my child, nor be a surrogate to carry someone else’s child. I want children, but I would never want to be treated as the means to an end, and I would not want my child to be considered a commodity. I strongly agree with Cahill in that a binding moral obligation does come with certain choices, even if we did not choose them in the first
In this essay, I will hold that the strongest argument in defence of abortion was provided by Judith Jarvis Thompson. She argued that abortion is still morally permissible, regardless if one accepts the premise that the foetus is a person from the moment of conception. In what follows, I agree that abortion is permissible in the ‘extreme case’ whereby the woman’s life is threatened by the foetus. Furthermore, I agree that abortion is permissible to prevent future pain and suffering to the child. However, I do not agree that the ‘violinist’ analogy is reliable when attempting to defend abortion involving involuntary conception cases such as rape, whereby the foetus does not threaten the woman’s health. To achieve this, I will highlight the distinction
Judith Jarvis Thomson, in "A Defense of Abortion", argues that even if we grant that fetuses have a fundamental right to life, in many cases the rights of the mother override the rights of a fetus. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants the initial contention that the fetus has a right to life at the moment of conception. However, Thomson explains, it is not self-evident that the fetus's right to life will always outweigh the mother's right to determine what goes on in her body. Thomson also contends that just because a woman voluntarily had intercourse, it does not follow that the fetus acquires special rights against the mother. Therefore, abortion is permissible even if the mother knows the risks of having sex. She makes her points with the following illustration. Imagine that you wake up one morning and find that you have been kidnapped, taken to a hospital, and a famous violist has been attached to your circulatory system. You are told that the violinist was ill and you were selected to be the host, in which the violinist will recover in nine months, but will die if disconnected from you before then. Clearly, Thomson argues, you are not morally required to continue being the host. In her essay she answers the question: what is the standard one has to have in order to be granted a right to life? She reflects on two prospects whether the right to life is being given the bare minimum to sustain life or ir the right to life is merely the right not to be killed. Thomson states that if the violinist has more of a right to life then you do, then someone should make you stay hooked up to the violinist with no exceptions. If not, then you should be free to go at a...
In the Judith Jarvis Thomson’s paper, “A Defense of Abortion”, the author argues that even though the fetus has a right to life, there are morally permissible reasons to have an abortion. Of course there are impermissible reasons to have an abortion, but she points out her reasoning why an abortion would be morally permissible. She believes that a woman should have control of her body and what is inside of her body. A person and a fetus’ right to life have a strong role in whether an abortion would be okay. Thomson continuously uses the story of a violinist to get the reader to understand her point of view.
The topic of my paper is abortion. In Judith Jarvis Thomson's paper, “A Defense of Abortion,” she presented a typical anti-abortion argument and tried to prove it false. I believe there is good reason to agree that the argument is sound and Thompson's criticisms of it are false.
Many Australians are turning to surrogacy as their last resort to have a child today. It is a process that has become more recognised popularly used over the years. Surrogacy is an arrangement for a woman to carry and deliver a child for another couple or individual. When the child is born, the birth mother permanently gives up the child to the intended parents. There are many legal issues surrounding surrogacy. Laws regarding this controversial process differ across Australia, and have changed dramatically overtime in Queensland. In this seminar, I will be analysing the issues involved with surrogacy, as well as evaluating and critiquing the new legislation that has been implemented in Queensland, that sets out the laws of surrogacy in Queensland.
Surrogate pregnancy was talked about and questioned in the early 1970’s but was not put into practice until 1976. The first case documented actually comes from the bible. It was the story of Abraham and Sarah. Sarah talks about her experience with infertility. She then turns to Hagar, her handmaiden, and asks her if she would carry their child for them since she was unable to. Hagar was their maid so in a way it was a command, not exactly a favor or question.
In the article 'A Defense of Abortion' Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is morally permissible even if the fetus is considered a person. In this paper I will give a fairly detailed description of Thomson main arguments for abortion. In particular I will take a close look at her famous 'violinist' argument. Following will be objections to the argumentative story focused on the reasoning that one person's right to life outweighs another person's right to autonomy. Then appropriate responses to these objections. Concluding the paper I will argue that Thomson's 'violinist' argument supporting the idea of a mother's right to autonomy outweighing a fetus' right to life does not make abortion permissible.
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.
Moral issues are so complex that the guidance of a theory can be ambiguous. This is the case for commercial surrogacy. Commercial surrogacy is when the woman who is carrying the baby is paid a large sum of money for the pregnancy. (Worldwide Surrogacy, 2017). Feminists have argued whether commercial surrogacy is ethical. Exploring commercial surrogacy can help find clarity to this issue. Feminist theory gives importance to emotions and relationships when deciding on ethical deliberations (Collier & Haliburton, 2015). It realizes that other ethical theories favour men but, women are different from
In A Defense of Abortion (Cahn and Markie), Judith Thomson presents an argument that abortion can be morally permissible even if the fetus is considered to be a person. Her primary reason for presenting an argument of this nature is that the abortion argument at the time had effectively come to a standstill. The typical anti-abortion argument was based on the idea that a fetus is a person and since killing a person is wrong, abortion is wrong. The pro-abortion adopts the opposite view: namely, that a fetus is not a person and is thus not entitled to the rights of people and so killing it couldn’t possibly be wrong.
A woman enters into a contract that consists on her getting pregnant with a strangers sperms, and after the baby is born, to give up the baby. The stranger is going to pay the medical expenses and $10,000 in exchange of claiming all the parental rights when the baby is born. The stranger is a good person who has not been able to have children on his own. Why does the morality of the action may seem doubtful? Philosopher Elizabeth Anderson wrote an essay called “is Women’s Labor a Commodity?” to explain in detail the reasons of commercial surrogacy being morally wrong. In her paper, Anderson explains that commercial surrogacy treats children and parental rights as objects that could be bought and sold for personal convenience. According to
Many people argue over if the practice is morally right or wrong. Supporters of surrogacy argue that, “Surrogacy provides infertile couples with a unique opportunity to raise a child who carries their genes. Surrogacy is a win-win proposition…” (Surrogacy.” Issues & Controversies”). Opponents on the other hand argue, “Putting a price tag on a woman 's womb is unnatural and distasteful. Indeed, surrogacy essentially assigns a dollar value to the life of a baby, which is abhorrent.” (Surrogacy.” Issues & Controversies”) Although there are many opinions of the subject, many women decide to practice surrogacy and enjoys the process of being a surrogate mother.
A surrogacy is the carrying of a pregnancy for intended parents. There are two kinds of surrogacy: “Gestational”, in which the egg and sperm belong to the intended parents and is carried by the surrogate, and “traditional”, where the surrogate is inseminated with the intended father’s sperm. Regardless of the method, I believe that surrogacy cannot be morally justified. Surrogacy literally means “substitute”, or “replacement”. A surrogate is a replacement for a mother for that 9-month period of pregnancy, and therefore is reducing the role of the surrogate mother to an oversimplified and dehumanizing labor. The pregnancy process for the gestational mother can be very physically and mentally demanding, and is unique because after birthing the
Surrogacy is becoming extremely popular as a way for people to build their families and women to have a source of income. Many people have various reasons for their opposition to it whether it be by comparing it to prostitution or disagreeing with how military wives take advantage of the Tricare insurance. Lorraine Ali states in her article “The Curious Lives of Surrogates” that one of the more popular reasons to oppose surrogacy is that it contradicts, “what we’ve always thought of as an unbreakable bond between mother and child.” However, a woman’s inability to conceive her own children does not determine the absence of a mother to child bond.
Surrogacy is when a woman offers to carry a baby on behalf of someone else. Once the baby is born, the surrogate mother returns the baby to its intended parents (IVF Australia, 2017). The embryo can be from the intended parents or donors, however the Australian Surrogacy Act of 2010 states that “the surrogate has no genetic link to the child and her eggs cannot be used to conceive the child.” (Queensland Government, 2017). In various Christian and Jewish denominations, such as Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism, the use of surrogacy to have a child is highly condemned (Surrogate Mothers Inc. 2016).