Procreative Liberty Debate Summary

In this article, Robertson believes that the right to reproduce or not is a fundamental moral right, not just about the freedom to do so. Many people oppose the use of non-coital technologies and believe it is unethical, while Robertson argues against this. Robertson begins the article by examining what procreative liberty is. Procreative liberty is the freedom to reproduce or not to reproduce. It is a negative right, in that a person violates no moral duty in making a procreative choice and that other persons have a duty to not interfere with that choice. In the law, procreative liberty is also a negative right. However, the ability to whether to practice this liberty is limited by social or economic restraints such as medical care, employment,

The freedom to avoid reproduction is the common interpretation of what procreative liberty is. This freedom occurs at several stages. The first stage occurs before conception through sexual abstinence, contraception, or refusal to seek treatment for infertility. The second stage occurs during pregnancy. At this stage, reproduction can be avoided only by termination of pregnancy or abortion. The freedom to procreate is an important freedom because it is a basic, human right. This freedom allows for marriage, sexual intercourse, and pregnancy. Procreative liberty allows for autonomy, people have control over which route they would like to take.

In Robertson’s view, the moral right to reproduce is respected because it is central to personal identity, meaning, and dignity. When people choose to avoid having children, it can affect the meaning of one’s life, because having and raising children is an important aspect of many people’s lives. Robertson strongly believes that reproduction is an important moral right and it should not be limited except for very good reason. Robertson gives an example of this, comparing an infertile women’s right to receive reproductive assistance to a handicapped person’s right to receive assistance walking or doing other

The first argument is its cost. It is expensive, and the technology may cause harm to the woman or the offspring. It also skews the traditional element of parenthood where a married man and woman have a child, now allowing homosexual couples, single men or women, or even infertile people, to have children. People can also choose to have a child with specific characteristics, or they can avoid having a child that may be mentally incompetent or have a deadly disease. The concerns against noncoital reproduction are not about overpopulation, parental unfitness, or societal costs. People are more worried that unwanted children will not have a chance to be adopted, women will be exploited, and that life will become a commodity. Some people use their religious morals to justify why they would be against the use of this technology, which Robertson does not feel is sufficient enough in opposing it. Robertson does not completely disagree with these negative aspects, but he does feel that there should be limitations on the technology’s use. For example, allowing a comatose or mentally incompetent woman to bear a child. There should be limits to who can use the technology, because besides its expensive price tag, there are people out there who want children but are not fit enough to raise them. The goal is to prevent substantial harm to the parents and the child. There should not be discrimination