The problem with reproductive freedom. Procreation beyond procreators' interests

What You're Rejecting When You're Expecting

I defend two collapsing or reductionist arguments against weak pro-natalism (WPN), the view that procreation is generally merely permissible. In particular, I argue that WPN collapses into strong pro-natalism (SPN), the view that procreation is generally obligatory. Because SPN conflicts with the dominant view that procreation is never obligatory, demonstrating that WPN collapses into or entails SPN establishes epistemic parity (at least as concerns reproductive liberty) between WPN and anti-natalism (AN), the view that procreation is always impermissible. First, I distinguish between two moral goods: the good of procreation itself and the good of procreative potential. Second, I contend that the average moral agent is obligated to assist needy children via adoption, fostering, or other financial or interpersonal support. Third, I present the first collapsing argument: if an agent's justification for not assisting needy children is preservation of their resources (financial or interpersonal) for their actual future offspring, that justification is preserved only if they eventually and actually procreate. Thus, their eventual procreation is morally obligatory and SPN follows. Fourth, I present the second collapsing argument, which assumes procreative potential as the relevant good: if an agent's justification for not assisting needy children is preservation of their resources for their potential future offspring, that justification holds only if (a) the objective or subjective valuation of the opportunity is of the relevant type and valence to justify not assisting needy children and (b) the agent sincerely values the opportunity. Fifth, I argue that (a) is unsatisfied and that while (b) is satisfied in most cases, it entails that most agents are obligated to desire or be behaviourally disposed to pursue procreation for themselves (i.e., SPN). Thus, I conclude that both actual procreation and procreative potential are either insufficient justifications for not assisting needy children or that they entail obligatory pro-reproductive attitudes or behaviours.

Guerrilla eugenics: gene drives in heritable human genome editing

CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing can and has altered human genomes, bringing bioethical debates about this capability to the forefront of philosophical and policy considerations. Here, I consider the underexplored implications of CRISPR-Cas9 gene drives for heritable human genome editing. Modification gene drives applied to heritable human genome editing would introduce a novel form of involuntary eugenic practice that I term guerrilla eugenics. Once introduced into a genome, stealth genetic editing by a gene drive genetic element would occur each subsequent generation irrespective of whether reproductive partners consent to it and irrespective of whether the genetic change confers any benefit. By overriding the ability to 'opt in' to genome editing, gene drives compromise the autonomy of carrier individuals and their reproductive partners to choose to use or avoid genome editing and impose additional burdens on those who hope to 'opt out' of further genome editing. High incidence of an initially rare gene drive in small human communities could occur within 200 years, with evolutionary fixation globally in a timeframe that is thousands of times sooner than achievable by non-drive germline editing. Following any introduction of heritable gene drives into human genomes, practices intended for surveillance or reversal also create fundamental ethical problems. Current policy guidelines do not comment explicitly on gene drives in humans. These considerations motivate an explicit moratorium as being warranted on gene drive development in heritable human genome editing.

„Selektive“ Fortpflanzung durch pränatale Diagnostik?

Die breite Einführung nicht-invasiver pränataler Tests (NIPT) sowie die Ausweitung der Testziele über Trisomien hinaus machen es notwendig, Sinn und Ziel der pränatalen Diagnostik (PND) als emergente soziale Praxis grundsätzlich zu diskutieren. Wenn, wie angenommen wird, PND nicht zu eugenischen Zwecken, sondern zur Stärkung der Autonomie dienen soll, muss gefragt werden, welche Bedeutung die Entscheidungen haben, ein bestimmtes zukünftiges Kind (nicht) zu gebären. Stephen Wilkinson hat vorgeschlagen, PND als eine Form „selektiver Reproduktion“ zu verstehen. In diesem Paper wird geprüft, ob die Charakterisierung der Entscheidung nach PND als „Selektion“ zutrifft und welche moralischen Vorannahmen ihr zugrunde liegen.

Es zeigt sich, dass das Konzept der „selektiven Reproduktion“ die Handlungen der PND inakkurat repräsentiert. Es beinhaltet zudem sowohl eine Abstrahierung als auch eine Distanzierung. Es nimmt an, dass Frauen und Paare entweder falls nötig mehrere Schwangerschaften planen, um ein gesundes Kind zu erzeugen, oder sich als Ausführende einer selektiven Strategie auf der Populationsebene verstehen. Die Einschränkung der ethischen Diskussion auf das Problem der Selektion verdeckt zwei wichtige Problemfelder, die die konflikthaltige Situation der PND aus der Perspektive der Frau oder des Paares charakterisieren: die Schwangerschaft als persönliche Beziehung und den Akt des Abbruchs der Schwangerschaft. Aufgrund seiner impliziten Normativität wird „selektive Fortpflanzung“ als sinnvolle Bezeichnung für die Praxis der PND zurückgewiesen.