A Case Against Unlimited Procreative Freedom
The right to unlimited procreative freedom entails that individuals are free from both direct and indirect interferences from others, as it relates to them pursuing and exercising their procreative capacities. While protecting individual rights from undue infringement is important in liberal democracies, the consequences of allowing unlimited procreative freedom are large. This is especially true in cases where there is increased risk of inheritance of lethal or diseased genetic traits, or where the chance of harm (defined in terms of suffering that would make life not worth living) is definite. In the following paper, I contend that the best argument against unlimited procreative freedom is that the rights of present individuals may be constrained, if their actions have the potential to degrade key aspects of humanity of future autonomous agents or cause irrevocable harm without consent. Given that both reproductive and non-reproductive rights should be equated, my argument is as follows: (I) If certain aspects of humanity are universally inalienable such as bodily integrity, then it is morally impermissible to fail in upholding this right as it pertains to present and future autonomous persons (II) Certain
…show more content…
As a result, emphasis should be placed on the well-being of future persons in instances where their bodily integrity or quality of life may be violated. It is morally impermissible to degrade the humanity and autonomy of a future person, and potentially pass on irrevocable harm as a result, in order to exercise an individual right. Bibliography
Benatar. The Limits of Reproductive Freedom. Sakai.
Campbell. Moral Theories. Sakai.
Nagel, T. (1972). War and Massacre. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(2), 123-144.
Mill. On Liberty. PPE