Procreative Liberty Bill Murray Summary

The focus of this article is procreative liberty, freedom in activities and choices related to procreation. This article by Murray talks about the defects in the procreative liberty framework, a different starting point, and starting with one rather than the other framework.
One of the arguments Murray makes is that there are confusions about procreative liberty. One confusion is the purpose of it; is it about morals of a family or is it about law and policies of reproductive technology? Does procreative liberty pay attention to what it means to care for a family, or does it strictly focus on the means of creating a family, or preventing having children? The other confusion is about whether to have a child or to not have a child. This argument is straight forward. To have a child is to create a person to care for and create a relationship with, and to not have a child by using means of contraception and abortion. Another argument Murray
makes about the defects is the disregard of the interests of children created through reproductive technology. Murray then gives an example of a couple who wants their fetus’ spinal column development to be terminated. Doing this would disregard the interest of the child to extremes. He is not saying that advocates of procreative liberty embrace prenatal mutilation, but merely have no support to not preform the mutilation. Advocates of procreative liberty do accept one constraint, they do not justify creating a child who would have been better off not born at all. The last framework defect Murray discusses is how procreative liberty does not acknowledge family values. They value control and choice, according to Murray these values are important but can alter other family values if in excess. Murray concludes his arguments by addressing objections and responding to the arguments made previous.
The first response made by Murray is to the argument regarding procreative liberty not including family values and only focusing on control and choice. This is a fundamental mistake says Murray. He points out that values like love, loyalty, intimacy, acceptance and others are ones that help children to become well rounded adults. He recognizes that becoming a parent can be a life altering experience for, not only women, but men as well. He says this problem began when people started applying the right of choice to families, which gave a disregard on how it will affect the flourishing. Murray says, “We must take seriously conceptions of human flourishing if we are to have any chance for meaningful moral dialogue or robust and sensible public policy on a variety of issues concerning conceiving, bearing and raising children.” He then suggests that we need a different framework, one that will acknowledge decisions about “having a child are not merely the other side of the moral/legal coin of decisions not to have a child.” This framework must also endorse the “moral significance and interests of the children created through reproductive technologies.” He points out that different people have different ideas of what it means to flourish, and that it is also different between men and women. Murray acknowledges that diversity can affect what it means to flourish, but then points out that when asked where you find meaning in your life, many answer with their family. He provides a thoughtful response to this statement. He points out that the death of a child can alter a person’s answer, and that there are families that are broken due to selfishness and poverty, that uncontrolled fertility can lead to abandonment of some children who are left uncared for. But these cannot alter the idea that families play a major part in the idea of flourishing. “We will find better insight about what it means to be human, I believe, by reflecting on the central relationships in out lives and the significant of those relationships for our flourishing, than by focusing exclusively on the liberty of autonomous adults.” Murray says. He goes on to talk about how people will fight for more arguments than agreements. There are public debates over things like abortion, and politics then get involved. If one politician takes on an aspect of the divide between right-to-life and pro-choice, then the opponent must also take it on as part of his or her campaign. Throughout this article Murray provides well thought and insightful responses to arguments previously made and goes on to what should happen.
Murray’s article concludes with a starting point of where Murray believe we should begin approaching the topic of procreative liberty. He believes that human flourishing should be the center of the new framework. He believes it should be based on the values previously mentioned, with a focus on the most important ones. Each family needs to look deeper into their situations and decided which ones are more important to them. Murray also talks about factors that affect human flourishing; such as, law and public policy, culture, the economy and professional norms. Some may promote human flourishing, while others may not. Another part of Murray’s new starting point is determining the purpose of families. Some say they give life meaning while others fight for the choice to not have a family. Murray is on the side that view families as giving life meaning. In this portion of the article Murray brings up the example of the Nash family. The daughter would die without certain life-saving measures. They used preimplantation genetic diagnosis for the purposes of avoiding having another child with the same illness, and to choose an embryo that could provide the life-saving measures for the daughter previously mentioned. In this case procreative liberty agrees with the Nash’s decision, and so does Murray. He says, “the Nash family’s choice was and ethically defensible action, born in compassion for the suffering of one child, and not an effort to exert control over the traits of another.” In conclusion, Murray doesn’t disagree with all of the components of procreative liberty, they just need a new starting point for their ideas. He believes we just need to start thinking more insightfully about the creation of children.
Overall, I agree with the arguments made by Murray.
Murray doesn’t say that procreative liberty is wrong, he just believes they have some problems in their thinking. The focus of Murray’s article is families and human flourishing. I believe Murray does a nice job of explaining families and the values and relationships within a family, while also acknowledging that not all families are perfect with loving and caring relationships within them. This is something that I can personally relate to. Growing up with half-siblings caused some difficult times, but that doesn’t stop me from wanting a family of my own someday. Which is what I believe Murray is trying to get across. He wants people to start families and procreate, but also realizes that people have the choice to start families or not. I agree that procreative liberty isn’t wrong, but just needs a new frame of mind for their framework. People should have access to contraception and abortions and the right to choice, but also should be focusing on human flourishing and
procreation.