Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T13:54:23.104Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 The best babies and parental responsibility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2014

Matti Häyry
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Get access

Summary

In this chapter, I examine three views on parental responsibility in ­reproductive selection. The first says that all selection is wrong; the second allows some selection at the discretion of the parents; and the third makes choices in the light of genetic and medical information a moral duty.

From infanticide to embryo selection and beyond

Most people want to have children and most societies support them in this endeavour. But many people have specific views about the kind of children they want to have and many societies support, officially or unofficially, their views. Newborn infants with disabilities have historically been excluded from the category of desired offspring. Health and normal physical and mental development have often been seen as reasonable parental ­expectations; and hopes of beauty, strength, and intelligence have not always been frowned on, either. A variety of methods have been suggested to achieve the coveted results, ranging from killing babies of the wrong type or letting them die, through terminations of pregnancy and the selection of embryos before implantation, to choosing reproductive partners and changing the qualities of unborn human beings by therapies or enhancements.

Philosophers of all schools of normative ethics have from time to time condoned infanticide, the disposal of unwanted babies, for one reason or another. Plato and Aristotle held up the idea of getting rid of defective newborns for eugenic purposes. Immanuel Kant maintained that a child born out of wedlock presents such a threat to the mother’s honour as a woman that she has a moral duty to terminate its existence. Jeremy Bentham argued that humanitarian concern for women should force lawgivers to assume a lenient attitude towards infanticide. These views reflect, to a degree, the social realities and perceptions of their times.

Type
Chapter
Information
Rationality and the Genetic Challenge
Making People Better?
, pp. 52 - 77
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×