Abstract
Mitchell, a sociologist, comments on a companion paper on in vitro fertilization by Peter Singer and Deane Wells. He criticizes the failure of Singer and Wells to consider the deleterious effects on society and on the children of artificial reproduction involving donated sperm or ova and accuses them of placing the desire of the individual to have a child above the good of society and of future generations. Singer, in a brief response, defends his utilitarian argument that reproductive technologies should be available to all. He does not consider knowledge of one's genetic identity to be a crucial issue, pointing out that the child's alternative is no existence at all.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
