Ethical Considerations Behind New Alternatives To Abortion.

Eric Bronkhurst

Prof. Robinson

10/31/06

Question #2

With technological advances of today, parents who are unable to substantially procreate are now given the opportunity to bear children. New techniques for procreation include Artificial Insemination, Surrogacy and In-Vitro Fertilization, all which have brought about happiness to families. Unfortunately, at the same time many of these new reproductive techniques may bring about ethical considerations and debates, causing pain and legal arguments. All of these ethical considerations warrant governmental and contractual regulation as a way of guidance in handling these situations.

The ethical considerations and debates that surround many of these new reproductive techniques are solely concerned mainly with Surrogacy and In-Vitro Fertilization. Although some instances of debates arise through Artificial Insemination, it is ultimately with the issue of AID or Artificial Insemination Donor. Many questions arise due to this artificial donor, such as who is legally the father of the child? Should the father be allowed visitation rights to child? The questions all arise in different cases which shall be discussed. Another issue in regarding the AID is whether the donor is anonymous or through a chosen donor.

In the case of RE Adoption of Anonymous in 1973, the ethical consideration of who is the legal father in a consensual AID case. The issue present is whether the father of the child is considered its "legal" father even though the child was conceived through an artificial donor. After the divorce, the new husband wanted to adopt the child but real father would not give his consent. The court ruled that the defendant of consensual AID is in fact considered the legal father of the child and the term "father" is not limited to biological or natural. (Appleton, 1103) This precedent was distinguished in the case of People v. Sorensen in 1969, which stated that the father of a consensual AID child is its legal father. The determining factor is whether a legal relationship exists and the legal responsibilities of fatherhood are known, with criminal liability for nonsupport. Another ethical consideration/debate in regards to AID is discussed in the case of Jhordan C. v. Mary K. 1986. Jhordan was a sperm donor and after the child was born, showed interest in visiting the child on a regular basis. The ethical consideration here is if the biological donor should be awarded visitation rights as well as paternal rights. The court declared Jhordan as the legal father of the child but the sole rights belong to its mother, allowing her female partner visitation rights also. The ethical considerations relating to AID must have a set of guidelines determining who could substantially be the father, despite biological or natural circumstances. In a case where there was no paternal figure, but say a close relative takes upon all legal responsibilities of the child, would he legally be considered the father? This is where the importance of governmental intervention and regulation is warranted to distinguish these considerations through guidelines. In regards to the Jhordan case, contractual obligation should have been taken because of the issue of the father wanting to visit; a contract to prevent that would have prohibited him to grow close with the child.

With the issue of Surrogacy, the ethical considerations range from the surrogate mother disregarding contracts and keeping rights of the child to also an instance where a couple feels that the state is preventing them the right to procreate. In the instance of the Baby M case of 1986, Mary Beth Whitehead was the surrogate mother chosen to bear the child of the Stern family who prior to the birth signed a contract on the premise she would give up the rights of the child. The court then ruled that using a surrogacy contract would conflict with issues involving adoption. The court then further ruled Whitehead as legal mother of child as well as Stern recognized as the child's father. One of the major issues regarding the case was what would be the in the best interest of the child, clearly staying with the Stern family was considered of better interest. Whitehead was permitted to view the child on a weekly basis which in my opinion disregards the best interest of the child. (Appleton, 1107) It is understandable that a woman's connection and bonding to the child during pregnancy can have a huge impact on one's life, but in this case you must also take into consideration the intended parents. If the government had stricter regulations regarding the contractual agreement proposed prior to the surrogacy, the whole issue wouldn't have been brought forth. I believe the government should require a certain time period for mental contemplation or counseling which would determine whether the surrogate mother was capable of going through with the pregnancy. By claiming that the contract infringement doesn't violate the Stern's constitutional rights is invalid because it denies Mr. Stern personally the right to not procreate. A contractual obligation must be strict because if the contract is disregarded, then it puts a sort of questionable authority on the government, and the meaning behind a contract degenerate. When going into surrogacy, the intentions were based upon having a child for his wife and himself, not to adopt a woman's child who used his sperm. Government regulation is warranted due to this fact that contract infringement could violate ones' constitutional rights as seen in the case with the Stern family.