Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Response critiques genetic preference arguments in reproductive ethics, highlighting issues with the non-identity problem.
In this short paper, I detail a case against Dr Guido Pennings's latest publication in the Journal of Medical Ethics, titled 'The moral obligation to have genetically related children". I argue that Pennings, despite raising awareness of issues of bioethical and scientific import, fatally neglects to interact with a central debate in reproductive ethics: the non-identity problem (NIP). Taking the NIP seriously, we can see that the moral obligation that Pennings argues for falls victim to the same kinds of issues as the principle of procreative beneficence, which Pennings also cites. This response then considers the possibility of damaging upshots if Pennings's arguments were read uncritically.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marcus T. L. Teo (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: