Publication
All you need is [somebody’s] love “third-party reproduction” and the existential density of biological affinity
| dc.contributor.author | Madureira, Diogo Morais Sarmento | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-11-26T14:21:37Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2024-11-26T14:21:37Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2024-11-15 | |
| dc.description.abstract | What is the true significance of biological kinship? During the last decades, it seemed to be uncontroversial that abandoned and even adopted people feel the negative impact of biological parents’ absence throughout life in several ways (Miller et al. 2000; Keyes, Margaret A., Anu Sharma, Irene J Elkins, and William G. Iacono, Matt McGue. 2008. The Mental Health of US Adolescents Adopted in Infancy. Archive Pediatric Adolescense Medicine 162(5): 419–425.). However, in the case of people conceived via “third-party reproduction”, especially in sperm donation, the disruption of the kinship network derived from natural bonds tends to be presented as something irrelevant. This article disputes that assumption, explores its relationship with a deconstructivist vision that presents kinship as a purely social construct and defends the personal and existential value of a person’s biological bonds with her parents. While analysing the anthropological shift inherent to the way some political discourses present the nuclear family and heterologous biotechnology, it proposes renewed philosophical attention on the significance of filiation and human affinity. This article argues for the density of genealogical ties and defends that the consecration of an individual “right to a child”, namely (but not exclusively) through the normalised access to sperm banks, is incompatible with the rights of the child, since it deprives people from knowing not only who but also how is their father. | pt_PT |
| dc.description.version | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion | pt_PT |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1007/s40592-024-00212-3 | pt_PT |
| dc.identifier.eid | 85209116701 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1321-2753 | |
| dc.identifier.pmc | PMC11585496 | |
| dc.identifier.pmid | 39546249 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10400.14/47298 | |
| dc.identifier.wos | 001355262400001 | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | pt_PT |
| dc.peerreviewed | yes | pt_PT |
| dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Biological family | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Children’s rights | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Family policies | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Father’s love | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Filiation | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Human affinity | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Kinship | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Natural bonds | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Personality | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Right to a child | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Third-party reproduction | pt_PT |
| dc.title | All you need is [somebody’s] love “third-party reproduction” and the existential density of biological affinity | pt_PT |
| dc.type | journal article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| oaire.citation.endPage | 259 | pt_PT |
| oaire.citation.startPage | 234 | pt_PT |
| oaire.citation.title | Monash bioethics review | pt_PT |
| oaire.citation.volume | 42 | pt_PT |
| rcaap.rights | openAccess | pt_PT |
| rcaap.type | article | pt_PT |