1. INFERTILITY AND ASSISTED REPRODUCTION ETHICAL ISSUES WITH FEW ANSWERS

2. INFERTILITY I DISEASE –PHYSICAL OR MENTAL CONDITIONS OF AN ORGANISM THAT RESULT IN DEVIATIONS FROM NORMAL SPECIES FUNCTION –PHYSICAL OR MENTAL IMPAIRMENTS TO ACHIEVING THE GOALS PROPER TO THE HUMAN STATE VALUE-LADEN COMPONENT RATIONAL, FREE AGENCY A RELATIVELY HIGH PRIORITY COMPARED TO OTHER DISEASE STATES TREATED, MODIFIED OR AMMELIORATED BY MEDICAL INTERVENTIONS

3. INFERTILITY II DISABILITY –LIKE DISEASE --- LIMITS FUNCTION –BROADENS THE TYPES OF RESPONSES EMPLOYED –INSURANCE COVERAGE? –FEDERAL PROTECTION AID TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

4. TOTAL OPPOSITION TO ASSISTED REPRODUCTION DEGRADES PARENTHOOD WEDGE ARGUMENT CHILD AS MEANS TO PARENTS’ END CHILDREN BECOME COMMODITIES ANOTHER WAY TO DOMINATE WOMEN’S BODIES –REINFORCES SEX ROLES RACIAL DISPARITY –AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN STEERED AWAY FROM ASSISTED REPREDUCTION

5. ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AS AUTONOMOUS RIGHT LEFT TO INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS –LIMITED REGULATION BY THE STATE CHILDREN NOT NECESSARILY TREATED AS COMMODITIES “RIGHT” TO PROCREATE [NON-COITALLY] INFORMED CONSENT INCREASES REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM

6. ASSISTED REPRODUCTION THE MIDDLE GROUND PROCREATIVE LIBERTY HAS SOME LIMITS –EFFECT ON SOCIETAL RESOURCES –VALUE ATTACHED TO HUMAN LIFE BENEFICENT REGARD FOR INDIVIDUAL CHOICE PROTECTION OF THE VULNERABLE –THIRD PARTY PARTICIPANTS CHILDREN VIEWED AS COMMODITIES CONCERN FOR SOCIETAL FAIRNESS AND DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE –BENEFITS ONLY TO THE ELITE

7. HARM TO CHILDREN BEST INTERESTS OF CHILDREN –WHAT KIND OF LIFE WILL THE CHILD HAVE? RISKING DAMAGE TO OFFSPRING –TORT OF “WRONGFUL LIFE” –INADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY FOR HEALTH –NO MINIMALLY DECENT OPPORTUNITY FOR DEVELOPMENT MYTH OF ASSUMING THAT “CHILDREN ARE WAITING IN A WORLD OF NONEXISTENCE WHERE THEIR SITUATION IS LESS DESIRABLE THAN IT WOULD BE IF THEY WERE RELEASED INTO THIS WORLD.”