Situation ethics, proposed in the 1960’s by Joesph Fletcher takes an entirely subjective approach to ethics based on the teachers of Jesus and was largely adopted by the Church of England. Fletch would respond to the claim that it is every women’s right to have a child if that child is going to be loved and cared for by the parents. Situation ethics cast aside objective rigid unchanging rules and takes a more sympathetic response to women unable to conceive, he believes as long as the four working principles and six fundamental principles are adhered to (most importantly - "Only one ‘thing’ is intrinsically good; namely, love: nothing else at all"). Moral relativists find all types of fertility treatments morally acceptable providing they bring happiness and love to a family who would otherwise remain childless.
The central idea of is that decisions about moral issues are to be based on what is good for the greatest number of people. This means, whatever satisfies most people is good. When deciding if every woman had the right to a child a utilitarian would consult Bentham’s ‘Hedonic Calculus’ as a way of measuring the pleasure derived from providing a childless woman with a child. The Hedonic Calculus can be applied to the statement that all women have the right to a child (assuming the mother isn’t a child abuser!
1) The intensity of the pleasure or pain. – Several hours of labour would no doubt be painful for the mother, but the intensity of pleasure derived would be far greater. 2) Duration – the pain caused by childbirth would last for several hours, yet the pleasure could potentially last a lifetime. 3) Purity – the experience of having a child is not free from pain, yet it is far out-weighed from the pleasures. 4) Certainty – although there is a risk that the pleasure brought about from the experience will be less than expected, it is small. 5) Propinquity – the pleasure is easily accessible. 6) Extent – the child may grow up and bring pleasure to many, many people, so therefore extent cannot be measured very well. In summary, a utilitarian would argue that everywoman has the right to a child provided the child is loved.
“The right to a child is not an absolute right” discuss
Some people could argue that some mothers do not have the right to have a child because he/she is infertile or are too old or too ugly, but surly this is a form of discrimination and saying that one person has more of a right to a child than another is wrong.
Some may argue that any woman who is physically capable of having a child has the right to one, this I’m not so sure about, I believe that having a child for any sort of personal or financial gain where the interests of the child come second is wrong. I believe that mentally unstable parents who could possibly physically harm their child also do not have the right to one.
The Roman Catholic Church believes a child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."
To a certain extent, although I am an atheist I support the view of the church when they say that a child may not be considered a piece of property, but I feel that loving parents have an absolute right to a child, even if the parent is single they shouldn’t be discriminated against.
