Artificial Insemination :: Pregnancy Reproduction Essays

dummy Insemination There be different types of responsibility relate in hu earth reproduction. With modern biomedical technology the question of who is responsible? comes up a lot more. Artificial insemination is one of newer forms of technology that involves that question, which includes moral, and social responsibility. In Artificial Insemination Munson raises the question non only of whos responsible notwithstanding excessively what responsibilities and rights the sperm cellatozoon bestower has and where fatherhood comes into place in that situation. He argues that the responsibilities of the conferrer are part from the electric razor produced but has the responsibility of quality, centre informing the bank of both diseases and family history. Mainly the topic Munson seems to focus on is the responsibility the sperm donor has to the child. He believes that The donors actions make up only in donating (selling) his sperm some responsibility attach to such(prenominal) actions, but the responsibility of beingness a moral father is not among them. The moral father of a child does not necessarily signify the biological father, but the man that is involved in intend or actions, such as intercourse, towards the pregnancy. Munson and so supports his arguments well with the example of two administration cases. The case of People vs. Sorenson shows that Mr. Sorensen, withal after divorcing his wife, was still responsible for the child even if he wasnt the biological father. He was involved with the planning and consented to his wife getting large(predicate) using artificial insemination, therefore was held credible for child support. Munson then explained that the sperm donor was explicitly held to be no different from a occupation donor. The other case use was the case of CM vs. CC. In that case CM, the supplier of the sperm was also implicated in the planning of the pregnancy. Even though CC and CM were dat ing exclusively during around of the pregnancy, when they separated CC refused to allow CM visit the child. The court gear up the manner in which CC was impregnated conflicting and granted him visitation rights and enatic obligations. The use of this case shows that even though artificial insemination was used, the man involved in the planning, who also happened to be the donor, is the moral father.Artificial Insemination Pregnancy counter EssaysArtificial Insemination There are different types of responsibility involved in human reproduction. With modern biomedical technology the question of who is responsible? comes up a lot more. Artificial insemination is one of newer forms of technology that involves that question, which includes moral, and social responsibility. In Artificial Insemination Munson raises the question not only of whos responsible but also what responsibilities and rights the sperm donor has and where fatherhood comes into place in that situ ation. He argues that the responsibilities of the donor are severed from the child produced but has the responsibility of quality, meaning informing the bank of any diseases and family history. Mainly the topic Munson seems to focus on is the responsibility the sperm donor has to the child. He believes that The donors actions consist only in donating (selling) his sperm some responsibility attach to such actions, but the responsibility of being a moral father is not among them. The moral father of a child does not necessarily mean the biological father, but the man that is involved in planning or actions, such as intercourse, towards the pregnancy. Munson then supports his arguments well with the example of two court cases. The case of People vs. Sorenson shows that Mr. Sorensen, even after divorcing his wife, was still responsible for the child even if he wasnt the biological father. He was involved with the planning and consented to his wife getting pregnant usi ng artificial insemination, therefore was held liable for child support. Munson then explained that the sperm donor was explicitly held to be no different from a blood donor. The other case used was the case of CM vs. CC. In that case CM, the supplier of the sperm was also implicated in the planning of the pregnancy. Even though CC and CM were dating exclusively during most of the pregnancy, when they separated CC refused to allow CM visit the child. The court found the manner in which CC was impregnated irrelevant and granted him visitation rights and parental obligations. The use of this case shows that even though artificial insemination was used, the man involved in the planning, who also happened to be the donor, is the moral father.