However, it could be argued that, as God created everything for a reason with its own individual final cause, Natural Law can be manipulated so that it allows fertility treatment. It could be said that God created humans with the gifts of reason and intelligence. Through the utilisation of these God given gifts, humans have been able to devise great medical technology, by which problems such as infertility can be overcome. God could therefore, create infertile people so that humans have the opportunity to exercise their gift of reason, and strive to develop cures such as IVF treatment so as to prevent these conditions. Humans would therefore be making the most of their God-given gifts so as to help the human race fulfil their role of procreation, and to help the human race flourish.
It is also possible to argue that humans, as the highest point of creation, were fashioned to populate and steward the earth. Infertile humans, therefore, are counter to this idea, as they are unable to reproduce. This could be seen as unnatural, as all life forms can reproduce, so to provide fertility treatment so as to fulfil the natural role of a human and to procreate would surely be complying with natural law?
The principles of natural law state that God created all objects for a purpose, and all have a final cause. They can, however, be manipulated so that, when applied to decisions on the provision of fertility treatment, they both support and refuse it. Essentially, the principles of Natural Law would refuse the decision of fertility treatment, however, it is possible to argue the principles so that they become more lenient. The problem with the argument is that it is based on if God exists and if there is a final cause for everything, but there may not be a God, and there may not be a final cause. If this is the case, there is no argument for Natural Law denying fertility treatment, as on no grounds could it be claimed that the person was created to be infertile, and that there final cause was not to have children, and that it is contradictory to God’s plan, as there may be no God and no final cause. However, it is, as of yet, impossible to know if God and the final cause exist or not, so Natural Law both allows and refuses fertility treatment, depending on the perspective you wish to take.
- Discuss the claim that every adult has the right to a child.
The claim that every adult has the right to a child is absolutist, as it implies that in any situation, any adult has the right to a child. The discussion of this claim involves the application of situation ethics so as to evaluate all circumstances involving a child that are not conventional.
The claim ‘every adult has the right to a child’ implies that the child is some sort of token or object that the adult deserves- it is as if the child is not a human being and does not need to be considered. The idea that one human being should have the right to another is ridiculous. Each human has the right to be respected as an individual, and not as something somebody else has a right to. his also indicates that, in the context of the claim, the adult is being considered as the most important part of the equation, when it is clear that the priority of any situation involving a child should be the child itself, and not any adults involved.
Any adult who is able to provide a child with a high quality upbringing and a good start in life has ‘the right’ to a child. A good parent should be financially stable, and should be capable of giving the child everything that it needs so as to offer it the prospect of a good childhood. There are many situations in which adults would not be able to do this, and do not therefore have ‘the right’ to a child.
In the interests of the child, it would not be right for a person suffering from a debilitating or mental illness to have a child, as they would not be able to give it the sufficient attention and care that it needs. Crucial things such as tending to the child when it is in need would not be possible for somebody who is mentally or physically handicapped, for example, somebody who has Down’s syndrome or in a wheelchair. It is also dangerous for a person with mental illness to have ‘the right’ to a child, as somebody of unstable mind could is capable of doing anything, and it is possible that the child could be harmed.
It is probably universally agreed that paedophiles and sex offenders do not have ‘the right’ to a child. It would be totally immoral to place a child unnecessarily in a situation whereby it is at serious risk. Paedophilia and other sexual related illnesses are incurable, and it is inconceivable that a child could be placed in the care of somebody who would abuse them.
Another situation in which it could be deemed inappropriate for an adult to have a child is when they are homosexual. Children who grow up with homosexual parents are deprived of an essential constant male and female influence in their lives. If a child grows up in a homosexual environment, they will have learned behaviour, and may not be able to relate to the opposite sex in later life as well as a child of a heterosexual couple. Also, a child who has homosexual parents will be likely to suffer from bullying at school, as the situation will not be conventional.
More basic issues such as the age and financial status of the parents also affect whether or not every adult has ‘the right’ to a child. It is not in the best interests of the child or the parents if a 13-year-old girl becomes pregnant by her 15-year-old boyfriend. It is evident that they will not be able to care for the child, as they are both in full time education. Neither of the parents can be employed, so there would be no money with which the child can be provided with all the necessities such as nappies and toys. Similarly, it would not be in the best interests of the child if a very old couple (receiving hormone replacement treatment or through IVF) have a child. They would be too old to be able to attend to the demands of a baby, and would not be able to provide for a child in the way that a younger adult would.
Someone of the Christian faith or who followed natural law would also consider the idea that people who are infertile do not have ‘the right’ to a child. People of these beliefs would argue that God created those people in that way so that they could not have children, for example, it could be that, if they were able to he children, they would have been unfit parents, and it would be in the best interests of children that they did not become parents, so God made them infertile. So, if an infertile person wanted fertility treatment, it could be argued that this would be going against God’s desire for that person, and they therefore do not have to the right to a child.
The claim that every adult has the right to a child focuses solely on the needs and rights of the adult, and treats the child as a mere object. It is clear that the most important element is the child, and the quality of the upbringing that a child born into any of the above situations would experience. The claim is also based on the idea that all humans are equal, and they are not. They are equal in terms of their human rights and the way in which they deserve to be treated, but not all humans are of equal capability when considering their capability of nurturing a child. For this reason, not every adult has the right to a child; it is every child that has the right to the upbringing that they deserve.
