Feminist Philosophers

News feminist philosophers can use

Charlotte Witt on Baby Boxes February 11, 2013

Filed under: human rights,reproductive rights — jennysaul @ 10:50 am

Feminist philosopher Charlotte Witt has an excellent piece in the Boston Review.

There is a hidden political dimension to the debate over children’s right to know. The debate presupposes a bionormative view of the family, which holds that families formed via biological reproduction are the gold standard or Platonic form of the family. The implicit bionormative assumption emerges in the thought experiments above. When we ask about children placed in baby boxes (and subsequently adopted), our intuitions might favor the notion of a right to know. But when we consider families formed by biological reproduction, our intuitions do not line up to support such a right. Rather, we think that the mother who is estranged from her family of origin, or who does not know who or where the father is, has the right, and, indeed, the obligation, to determine what to tell her child about family and ancestry, and what not to tell her. It is a question of the child’s welfare, not the child’s rights. In the case of families that do not meet the bionormative standard, however, we are more likely to favor a child’s right to know. This indicates a tacit priority granted to biological or genetic ties.

 

3 Responses to “Charlotte Witt on Baby Boxes”

  1. Katy Abramson Says:

    Go Charlotte! This rocks.

  2. annejjacobson Says:

    I agree; it says lots that needs to be said. But I think that it is not true that important medical knowledge cannot be revealed by knowing who one’s mother/female biological relative is. I’m thinking of genes and breast cancer.

    If we could do gene sequencing on all young girls, we could spot those with cancer enabling genes, but as things are now, the best sign is that genetically related females have one.

    I *think* that inherited cancer can also be particularly fast growing, so finding it can be life saving. (I’m going by memory here; if the standard line on this has changed, please let us know.)

    It is true, apparently, that a lot of women are having preventative mastectomies that are not necessary, so this is another case when the very possibilities medicines open up can have bad results.

  3. Charlotte Says:

    Hi Anne,
    I agree that medical history can be important in prevention and diagnosis. However, the medical history argument is separate from the identity argument that underlies the right to know. Requiring a family medical history form would not satisfy those who believe there is a right to know. I discussed this in the piece but it was cut by an editor.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,574 other followers