Surrogacy: Wombs for Rent - NATURAL LAW
The purpose of this paper is to analyze three moral actions found in the media piece "Surrogacy: Wombs for Rent" based upon the principles of forfeiture and double effect found within the Natural Law Theory. In general, Natural Law is derived from seemingly unchangeable moral principles found in nature through the use of logical reasoning. As a result, Natural Law only creates vague but strict guidelines as to how a human should behave.
Criteria:
Delving in the specific criteria that we shall be using to judge whether the chosen actions are either allowed or not allowed, the principle of forfeiture states:
- If you threaten an innocent person’s life you forfeit your own life
- If you take an innocent …show more content…
The Three Chosen Moral Actions:
- The first action that could be made would be for Salina to shift her entire focus onto taking care of her family regardless of the baby she is carrying
- The second action would be for her to not abort the baby despite having economic difficulty and issues taking care of her family
- The third action would be for the parents who purchased the surrogacy to continue payments for Salinas medical and other expenses in order to maintain the baby
Testing the Principles Verse the …show more content…
This choice would fall under life (self-preservation), because she cannot afford to keep the baby and pay for her family. To maintain her families well being, Salina would need to put her family’s needs before the babies. In this, securing her family’s survival is the action and terminating the pregnancy is the side effect. As a result of the side effect, we must use the principle of double effect to find out whether her life is forfeit. The first criteria is if the action is right, the action is ensuring the survival of her family so the action is morally right. The second criteria is if the side effect cannot be avoided. In this course she would not be able to support her family if she continued with the surrogacy so it cannot be avoided by any action she can take. The third criteria is that the bad effect is a side effect. If the survival of her family is the action, then termination would be the side effect. The last criteria is that the bad effect and good effect are morally equal. Saving her family at the cost of another’s baby. So if you put them on a moral scale for her, her family weighs more than the one stranger’s baby therefor the good is better and it passes all the criteria. By passing all the criteria of double effect, Salina’s life is not
The purpose of this paper is to analyze three moral actions found in the media piece "Surrogacy: Wombs for Rent" based upon the principles of forfeiture and double effect found within the Natural Law Theory. In general, Natural Law is derived from seemingly unchangeable moral principles found in nature through the use of logical reasoning. As a result, Natural Law only creates vague but strict guidelines as to how a human should behave.
Criteria:
Delving in the specific criteria that we shall be using to judge whether the chosen actions are either allowed or not allowed, the principle of forfeiture states:
- If you threaten an innocent person’s life you forfeit your own life
- If you take an innocent …show more content…
The Three Chosen Moral Actions:
- The first action that could be made would be for Salina to shift her entire focus onto taking care of her family regardless of the baby she is carrying
- The second action would be for her to not abort the baby despite having economic difficulty and issues taking care of her family
- The third action would be for the parents who purchased the surrogacy to continue payments for Salinas medical and other expenses in order to maintain the baby
Testing the Principles Verse the …show more content…
This choice would fall under life (self-preservation), because she cannot afford to keep the baby and pay for her family. To maintain her families well being, Salina would need to put her family’s needs before the babies. In this, securing her family’s survival is the action and terminating the pregnancy is the side effect. As a result of the side effect, we must use the principle of double effect to find out whether her life is forfeit. The first criteria is if the action is right, the action is ensuring the survival of her family so the action is morally right. The second criteria is if the side effect cannot be avoided. In this course she would not be able to support her family if she continued with the surrogacy so it cannot be avoided by any action she can take. The third criteria is that the bad effect is a side effect. If the survival of her family is the action, then termination would be the side effect. The last criteria is that the bad effect and good effect are morally equal. Saving her family at the cost of another’s baby. So if you put them on a moral scale for her, her family weighs more than the one stranger’s baby therefor the good is better and it passes all the criteria. By passing all the criteria of double effect, Salina’s life is not