Explain the issues of the claim to the right of a child.

Some people see rights as gifts from god, as humans were made in God’s image, making humans sacred. Being sacred gives us rights. People hold this view, while others don’t. That argue that rights come from nature, simply because we hold more intrinsic value than other creatures. Other would even argue that rights come from the responsibilities and duties that we have towards others. Rights are then simply a result of being human; this has an impact on every part of society.

This raises many issues in today’s society. The main question surrounding fertility treatment is “Is having a child by artificial means playing God?” Fertility treatment raises a few ethical issues, such as: “Who has the right to fertility treatment?” “When does life begin?” and “Do homosexual couples and single women have the right to fertility treatment?”

People who follow the teachings of Christian ethics would say that life is a gift from God. This means that they would say tat nobody has the right to have a child if it involves having a child through artificial means by playing God. Christians believe in the sanctity of life. This means that all life holds intrinsic value and therefore life begins from contraception. This would mean that embryos cannot be used for fetal research, with uses such as IVF. And tr shouldn’t be disposed of if they are unwanted.

Some Christians would argue that women have some rights as men, as far as being parents as concerned and age should not be a barrier. Others would appose to this and say that they should just accept their infertility, as God did not intend them to have children. Therefore, some Christians would argue that nobody has the right to infertility treatment.

People that follow natural law would reject any means other than natural contraception. This includes the idea that masturbation to obtain sperm is wrong. This is because masturbation is an abuse of sex if it is not used in a unitative manner. Humans have the natural negative right to a child. Like Christian ethics, natural law holds the belief that we have a gift to a child, not a human right to a child. For many of the issues, natural law holds similar views on these rights.

Situation ethicists believe that the human right to a child is afforded by doing “the most loving thing”. This means that according to the situation anybody, potentially, has the right to fertility treatment. Whether an embryo is seen as a person or not, abortion depends on whether is is the loving thing to do. If it is, then it is always acceptable. However, it would be very difficult to predict the consequences.

Utilitarians believe that the answer to the issues to the claim of the right of a child is that whatever brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number is the right thing to do. Most utilitarians believe that people have a positive human right to a child therefore; having a child by artificial means is not playing God. And anybody should have the right to fertility treatment if it brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number.

For a utilitarian, the embryo does not have preferences; it is neither happy nor sad. It cannot feel pain or pleasure. But destroying it could affect others. This means that they must think that life begins at a later stage in the pregnancy, as they allow artificial means such as IVF. Homosexuals have the right to a child from a utilitarian perspective. If it brings happiness to the couple then it is accepted.

For Kant, he believed that the only natural right for humans is the ability to make moral choices. Therefore, humans have a human negative right to a child. He believed humans are humans at whatever stage in life they’re at. Therefore the difference between personhood and becoming a human is irrelevant. Embryos are human and should not be killed for fertility treatment.

Different people have different answers to these issues.

Bentham said, “Rights are nonsense on stilts”.

Bentham was a utilitarian. Bentham's original theory of Utilitarianism can be boiled down to one underlying principle, the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. By saying this, this may mean that Bentham does not agree that humans have rights. Natural rights are simple nonsense. This is where Bentham’s use of nonsense on stilts came about. People see rights as a gateway to make their actions right. Such as, “I have the right to a child”. But others may not see that they do. Therefore their right cannot be natural, or everyone would agree, and there would be no issues of the matter.

Bentham’s metaphor could also be portrayed in a different way, in a more literal manner. Rights are propped up as they have authority. People use rights to prevent or justify their actions. The rights are nonsense to begin with, as according to Bentham, there is no such thing as a natural right. They have to stay balanced, but someone could always come along and cause the “rights” to fall off the stilts.

This raises issues. If rights don’t exist, then how do we know the answer to questions surrounding the right to a child? Bentham believed in a teleological, relative and subjective theory, so therefore his actions were based solely on the consequences; to bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number. What he thought was acceptable, could be different to what someone else perceived as acceptable.

In my opinion, Bentham is right, whichever way his metaphor is perceived. People like to use “ought” statements, such as “I ought to have fertility treatment”, to support what they believe is a right. In doing this, it goes against what others’ biases and their beliefs. To say “you shouldn’t kill because I think killing is bad and a lot of others agree with me and will punish you” is less persuasive than “you shouldn’t kill because nature (or God) says its wrong.” They both provide the same statement, to an extent. This leads me to think that there isn’t such a thing as rights. People have provided themselves with statements to keep order in the world. Even if this is the case, it still is not necessarily a bad thing.