I am using this "break" (rather meaningless, since I'm done with classes) to wrap up a very old paper. As sometimes happens, I got a burst of inspiration about a totally new direction for this paper. I am way too far into it to change courses now. Back in my pre-blog days when I still research-journaled on a yellow legal pad I may have been able to convince myself to toss out 20-plus pages of work to start on this new idea, so as not to have it "go to waste."
But now that I'm blogging, I can write a little bit about it here, preserving it for all time, and still pound out the remaining few edits on my original paper so as to get the thing over and done with.
Technology is grand!
So, without further ado:
Background. The paper I have been working on has to do with exploring whether there is any basis for applying ethical theory to the choice between adoption and assisted reproductive technology (ART). Clearly, some people make the decision to pursue parenthood via one or the other means (or both, in some cases). This may be just a pragmatic decision. But is there an argument to be made that it is also an ethical decision? And here I am not talking about decision making on a large, policy scale, but decision making on a personal scale--by individuals and by couples. Further, my paper's focus is whether a particular ethical theory can provide the frame for this decision.
Now, I am not a philosophy major (though I play one in my minor program). My own understanding of ethical theories is generally limited by the few classes I have taken as well as the casual-but-fairly-extensive, own-interest-and-curiosity-driven extracurricular reading I have done in philosophy. But, as you may know from reading my previous posts (e.g., this one), I love theory, and can relate to philosophical theories as being in the same species of intellectual thought as sociological and psychological theories. SO, my hope would be that ethical theory (like family science theory) can be helpful in understanding real world phenomenon--like real folks trying to decide whether or not to adopt a child or use ART to conceive a child.
ART and Adoption: What's at Stake? I have written on the empirical work on this at length in one of my written prelim papers. (If you're that interested, you can access it from my "WebCV" site here.) I'll simply say here that the main issue identified on a larger, societal level regarding this choice has to do with the tension between (1) providing a home for an already existing child who needs it, and (2) attempting to conceive a child that may be genetically related to one or both partners, or otherwise experiencing aspects more similar to "natural" childbearing (e.g., early bonding, pregnancy).
Social Contract Theory. My original paper is based on an entirely different theory. But I am intrigued by what the Social Contract Theory might have to offer in examining this adoption/ART choice. The Philosophy Pages defines the general form of this theory as:
"Belief that political structures and the legitimacy of the state derive from an (explicit or implicit) agreement by individual human beings to surrender (some or all of) their private rights in order to secure the protection and stability of an effective social organization or government."
For us human beings, as social creatures who cannot generally survive on our own, and as beings living in environments of limited resources, "it is only within the context of the social contract that we can become moral agents, because the contract creates the conditions under which we can afford to care about others" (Rachels, 1993, p. 142).
A Game. A useful application of the aspects of the social contract can be found in the intellectual parlor game known as the Prisoner's Dilemma. The main point of this dilemma is that it:
"illustrates a conflict between individual and group rationality. A group whose members pursue rational self-interest may all end up worse off than a group whose members act contrary to rational self-interest. More generally, if the payoffs are not assumed to represent self-interest, a group whose members rationally pursue any goals may all meet less success than if they had not rationally pursued their goals individually" (Kuhn, S. 2003, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/).
Rachels (1993) points out that real life situations can be viewed as "Prisoner's Dilemma-type" problems if they meet these two conditions:
(1) People's interests are impacted both by what they do and by what others do, and
(2) Paradoxically, everyone will be worse off if they individually do what's best for them than if they simultaneously did what is not best for them.
Next time I'll talk about how I see the choice between adoption and ART as fitting within this Prisoner's Dilemma framework and as being understandable in the context of the Social Contract Theory.
*(Rachels, J. 1993. The elements of moral philosophy 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill)
I have a comment about "providing a home for an existing child who needs it". To me it seems few people who consider adoption look for a child that is a true orphan. Instead they are trying to figure out how to get a perfectly healthy infant - and get one "quick and easy". I have some websites with statcounters on them so I can see what phrases people enter in when they search the web. Some are looking for "babies under $5000" or "willing to buy a baby" or "teen birthmothers available babies" (perhaps the idea is that it is easier to take advantage of young parents?).
Moms, dads and grandparents are lured into adoption before they can think - long before their child is even born. They are advised to select prospective adopters in advance of birth and in advance of surrendering parental rights - and then they are made to feel guilty if they exercise their constitutional right to the care, custody and control of their own child. Few doctors, nurses or other professionals will reveal to parents or grandparents-to-be the truth about the known long- and short-term risks to mother and child separated at birth. Adoption agencies and attorneys are raking in money and donations for this "charitable" work. It's a tragedy.
Posted by: Laurie at September 22, 2005 11:29 AM