Presentation Transcript

1. Natural Law - Rights to a child

2. Clearly it is impossible to talk about the 'right to a child' in the same way as the right to accommodation , food or life. While many people claim that a civilised society should ensure that every person is clothed, fed and housed, no-one is saying that anyone who is childless should be provided with a child. The 'right to a child' is clearly something else entirely.  The debate about the 'right to a child' is mostly about infertility treatments. Infertility affects at least 5% of couples (figures vary according to country and how you define infertility - a useful definition might be 'an inability to have a child despite trying over a long period of time [or over two years]'). More information is available from the HFEA. There are a number of treatments available to couples affected by infertility. Many of those treatments cost a significant amount of money. The success rates vary - IVF is successful in around 1 in 4 cycles, although this drops considerably for women in their late thirties and beyond. Donor insemination is around half as successful as IVF, although is much cheaper and simpler to repeat. People who argue for a 'right to a child' often suggest that infertility treatments should be available to all couples free of charge. However, this seems to confuse the deontological concept of a right with the pragmatic consideration of which resources might be made available to everyone. Rights to a child
3. Live - Reproduction is one of the five primary precepts of Natural Law. One of the reasons why God made humans, according to Aquinas, was to reproduce - that was their purpose. Primary precepts
4. SECONDARY PRECEPTS = Rules that are derived from the primary precepts Natural Law requires that we follow deontological principles, the secondary precepts that derive from the primary precepts. Precepts such as 'Do not kill' are absolute - there are no exceptions. Therefore it would be wrong or break one precept to fulfil another. If the Natural purpose of sexual organs is to reproduce, then CONTRACEPTION, MASTURBATION, HOMOSEXUALITY, and all casual sex are all equally immoral. This would mean its wrong for people who cant have children to have children as they would be using their sexual organs wrong. Secondary precepts
5. Supporters of the principle of double effect argue that, in situations which a "double effect" follows from one's conduct and where all four conditions are met, the conduct under consideration by the agent is ethically permissible despite the bad result.  As a consequence of this line of reasoning, the principle of double effect has played a significant role in the discussion of many difficult ethical questions. Remote Principles/ DOUBLE EFFECT
6. Aquinas goes on to enunciate the second specific precept of the natural law, common to humans– namely, to nurture and make provision for their offspring. As applied to humans, the requirements are proportionally more stringent. This law is associated with the instinctive desire of persons to have offspring and their willingness to invest immense energy in children's upbringing and well-being – even to the point of personal sacrifice, and even to sacrifice of life. The main "empirical" proof that this is indeed a law of nature is in the emotions and inclinations – the powerful love most parents feel for their offspring, often maintained in spite of setbacks and unrequited love. Parents reflecting on these appetitive phenomena might suspect that they are being subjected to something like a computer program. Nevertheless, like all instincts, the impetus to care for offspring can be interdicted or redirected, depending on circumstances – including, for humans, not only external environmental circumstances, but also prevailing ideas, ideals, and ideologies. While the law for the individual parent is to mobilize reason and resources to care for their progeny, the corresponding duty for those of us who witness this law operative in the parent is to respect their right to care for children, and do what is in our power to facilitate that objective – or, at least, not place obstacles in the way. Proportion-alism
7. Proportionalism is a theory of moral norms; it rightly considers them truths which direct action toward human goods. What is peculiar about proportionalism is the way it does this. According to a simple version of proportionalism, a moral judgment is a comparative evaluation of the possibilities available for choice. Each is examined to see what benefit and harm are likely to come about if it is chosen and the choice is carried out. Suppose one possibility promises considerably more benefit than harm, while another promises less benefit than harm. One ought to choose the first possibility, according to proportionalists, because it gives a better proportion of good to bad. The choice would be morally good according to the proportionalist precisely because one is choosing what is less bad. So letting a parent have a right to a child is less bad as they could infact adopt a child who is in a bad situation as they have no parents. Proportion-alism
8. Natural Law says that one of the Primary Precepts, a key purpose of human life, is reproduction. The Theory of Evolution says that the instinct to reproduce explains why our genes have survived. Does this mean we have a right to have a child? However, although reproduction is an essential aspect of human nature, Natural Law requires that we follow deontological principles, the secondary precepts that derive from the primary precepts. Precepts such as 'Do not kill' are absolute - there are no exceptions. Therefore it would be wrong or break one precept to fulfil another. Natural Law sees the destruction of embryos in IVF as completely wrong. It also views the involvement of a third party (such as in egg, sperm or embryo donation, as an attack on the sanctity of marriage. One primary precept is that we should live in an ordered society. If people are going around with two fathers or mothers, the structure of society is threatend. This is an issue which UK law has struggled with - traditionally a child had no right to find out the identity of a sperm-donor father. Now the law has changed. Being a biological parent is seen as very significant, and not something that can be hidden from a child. In some cases, this does cause a lot of problems and uncertainty as to the level of responsibility, commitment and involvement that a biological parent should have. Natural law