Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Individuals have a right to know facts about their biological history
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Donor anonymity protections reflect a legally recognized privacy interest grounded in bodily autonomy and reproductive liberty (Warren, Thomson).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
When two parties hold competing liberty interests over the same information, the party who generated that information through bodily risk holds the stronger prima facie claim.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Therefore, the donor's privacy right presumptively defeats any general right of the offspring to access identifying biological information.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Personal identity is constituted by psychological continuity, narrative self-understanding, and social relationships, not biological facts (Locke, Parfit, MacIntyre).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If biological facts are not constitutively necessary for personal identity, then no identity-based right to access them follows.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
Individuals require genuine facts about their biological history in order to develop a proper personal identity
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42