The article “Loving Future People” authored by Laura M. Purdy address critical aspects about the future of humanity. The article raises a number of controversial issues around what is often advocated for as human rights in relation to the discourse of reproduction. Purdy’s conclusion in the article is that it is good for desires to be satisfied when other things are being equal; however, it does not imply that such desires should be accepted without criticism, but because there are fundamental reasons for accepting them in the context of other things being equal. The conclusion advances the utilitarian paradigm because individuals feel the moral obligation to express their desires and achieve satisfaction. Purdy draws from different examples related to the current reproductive approaches:
The need for genetically related children despite other things being unequal
The collective objective to provide a decent quality of life for all people
Technological and traditional alternatives to genetically related children
Reproductive risks posed by factors such as AIDS
One can argue that the need for genetically related children is motivated by human natural instinct to advance its species, a common phenomenon in the animal kingdom. Therefore, people cannot be faulted for wanting children of their own. However, as Purdy observed, the context is not always favorable because things are rarely equal. The implication is that humans have burdened themselves with the moral obligation of ensuring equality for all. Therefore, emphasis on genetically related children by humans raises a host of ethical issues. According to Purdy, one such issue is the never ending debate about abortion. Despite evidence by different factions about the ills and benefits of abortion in different contexts, a consensus is yet to be reached on what the best approach entails.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The issue of reproductive technologies and traditional alternatives such as adoption in addressing some of the human desires is advanced by Purdy. According to Purdy, thee impacts of reproductive technologies on women are dual in nature. First, it can motivate people to risk the health of their future children through the misconception that the defect in the parents’ genetic makeup can be cured. Second, it opens a door to alternatives that can be used by women who are willing to have children by sacrificing the genetic link. However, a number of such options such as egg donation and contract pregnancy remain controversial, but AIDs which is uncontroversial is widely used, and adoption, which represents a reasonable option, is often morally problematic and practically difficult. Nevertheless, these alternatives can be used to address reproductive desires and achieve satisfaction.
If it were in a typical animal kingdom, nature would take its course to ensure that only the fittest survive. Purdy’s justification of the need for genetically identical children can be examined from this perspective. However, the moral obligation of providing comfortable life to all appears to supersede call to avoid bringing certain type of children to life. For instance, a parent who knowingly brings into life a child with a very high risk of Huntington’s Disease, may defend their decision through a number of claims including utilitarianism, moral obligation, and economic. One can argue that such claims are justified by the lack of an agreed definition of what is “normal.” Normal people may perceived genetically defective children as abnormal, but their parents, with experiences of what “abnormal” is, may not be overly concerned about those defects. Calling for parents to desist from wanting genetically related children on the assumption that such children cannot be harmed if they are not brought to existence, amounts to denial of the very right or reproduction advanced in Purdy’s article. Some people have proven that disability is not inability, and everyone must be allowed to fulfil their potential by allowing their existence.
In support of the above objection of Purdy’s justification of abandoning the quest for genetically related children, it is important to point out that humanity cannot all be perfect. Avoiding propagation of defective genes cannot address the problem because genetic evolution will eventually result to another defect. Part of what makes people human is their ability to recognize and appreciate those who depend on them. It would be detrimental to morality and ethics to have a society of perfect people because it would be similar to breeding an army of high performing individual. The laws of nature cannot be bent to suit the needs of humanity without repercussions.
Purdy’s conclusion can be accepted tentatively. Humans will always have desires and their biggest objective is how to satisfy them, regardless of whether other things are equal or not. People perceive such desires through utilitarian and moral lenses, implying that faulting them amounts to infringing on their rights to express such desires. What Purdy portrays as controversial in underpinned on the ability of humans to classify things as right or wrong. While such classification may be suitable when referring to behavior, it is unjustified to criminalize women who want to have children through the process of natural selection. Rather than focusing on stopping genetically defective children form existing, the best moral approach would be to explore ways of ensuring such children have comfortable lives to fulfil their potential, no matter how little. The only controversy should be whether the mother is willing to have a genetically related child or not. However, there are circumstances when Purdy’s justifications have a strong basis, for instance, when survival of the child cannot be guaranteed by any means. In such situations, the mother can be talked to about available alternatives and left to make the final decision on their own.
Reference
Purdy, L. (1995). Loving future people, In Joan Callahan (ed.), Reproduction, Ethics and the Law . Indiana University Press (1995).
