{"id":{"repo_id":"queens","oai_identifier":"oai:queensu.scholaris.ca:1974/7449"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/queens/oai:queensu.scholaris.ca:1974/7449","repository":{"repo_id":"queens","name":"Queens University","base_url":"https://qspace.library.queensu.ca/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Adopting Obligations: Duties to Existing Children","abstract":"This thesis argues that infertile prospective parents have a moral obligation to adopt rather than pursue ARTs (Assisted Reproductive Technology). The first chapter presents the negative argument against the common desire among prospective parents for a genetically related child. After refuting the five most promising reasons for wanting a biological child, I show that the burden of proof lies with defenders of ARTs to justify their use. In the second chapter I make the moral case in favour of adoption. By drawing an analogy to a standard and incontrovertible duty to aid case, I argue that infertile prospective parents have a duty to adopt. The final chapter justifies limiting the scope of my argument to the infertile. I argue that unlike fertile parents, the infertile who elect to pursue ARTs are clearly willing and able to assume additional costs in order to have a child. Consequently, there is a relevant difference between these two groups that justifies focusing on the latter.","abstract_html":"This thesis argues that infertile prospective parents have a moral obligation to adopt rather than pursue ARTs (Assisted Reproductive Technology). The first chapter presents the negative argument against the common desire among prospective parents for a genetically related child. After refuting the five most promising reasons for wanting a biological child, I show that the burden of proof lies with defenders of ARTs to justify their use. In the second chapter I make the moral case in favour of adoption. By drawing an analogy to a standard and incontrovertible duty to aid case, I argue that infertile prospective parents have a duty to adopt. The final chapter justifies limiting the scope of my argument to the infertile. I argue that unlike fertile parents, the infertile who elect to pursue ARTs are clearly willing and able to assume additional costs in order to have a child. Consequently, there is a relevant difference between these two groups that justifies focusing on the latter.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Teeple Hopkins, Morgan"],"institution":null,"degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":"Philosophy","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Gordon-Solmon, Kerah"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2012,"date_issued":"2012-09-10","date_published":"2012-09-10","updated_at":"2026-07-27T20:35:19Z","subjects":["Adoption"],"languages":["eng"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/1974/7449","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Philosophy"]},{"key":"dc:contributor.supervisor","label":"Supervisor","values":["Gordon-Solmon, Kerah"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Teeple Hopkins, Morgan"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2012-09-10 10:40:14.214"]},{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2012-09-10T19:49:15Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2012-09-10T19:49:15Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2012-09-10"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["thesis"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Adoption"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["eng"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/1974/7449"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["Thesis (Master, Philosophy) -- Queen's University, 2012-09-10 10:40:14.214"]},{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["This thesis argues that infertile prospective parents have a moral obligation to adopt rather than pursue ARTs (Assisted Reproductive Technology). The first chapter presents the negative argument against the common desire among prospective parents for a genetically related child. After refuting the five most promising reasons for wanting a biological child, I show that the burden of proof lies with defenders of ARTs to justify their use. In the second chapter I make the moral case in favour of adoption. By drawing an analogy to a standard and incontrovertible duty to aid case, I argue that infertile prospective parents have a duty to adopt. The final chapter justifies limiting the scope of my argument to the infertile. I argue that unlike fertile parents, the infertile who elect to pursue ARTs are clearly willing and able to assume additional costs in order to have a child. Consequently, there is a relevant difference between these two groups that justifies focusing on the latter."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["M.A."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Adopting Obligations: Duties to Existing Children"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.department":["Philosophy"],"dc:contributor.supervisor":["Gordon-Solmon, Kerah"],"dc:creator":["Teeple Hopkins, Morgan"],"dc:date":["2012-09-10 10:40:14.214"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2012-09-10T19:49:15Z"],"dc:date.available":["2012-09-10T19:49:15Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2012-09-10"],"dc:description":["Thesis (Master, Philosophy) -- Queen's University, 2012-09-10 10:40:14.214"],"dc:description.abstract":["This thesis argues that infertile prospective parents have a moral obligation to adopt rather than pursue ARTs (Assisted Reproductive Technology). The first chapter presents the negative argument against the common desire among prospective parents for a genetically related child. After refuting the five most promising reasons for wanting a biological child, I show that the burden of proof lies with defenders of ARTs to justify their use. In the second chapter I make the moral case in favour of adoption. By drawing an analogy to a standard and incontrovertible duty to aid case, I argue that infertile prospective parents have a duty to adopt. The final chapter justifies limiting the scope of my argument to the infertile. I argue that unlike fertile parents, the infertile who elect to pursue ARTs are clearly willing and able to assume additional costs in order to have a child. Consequently, there is a relevant difference between these two groups that justifies focusing on the latter."],"dc:description.degree":["M.A."],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/1974/7449"],"dc:language.iso":["eng"],"dc:subject":["Adoption"],"dc:title":["Adopting Obligations: Duties to Existing Children"],"dc:type":["thesis"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-27T20:35:19Z"}