In this volume, two authors debate the ethics of procreation. One argues for the anti-natalist view that procreation is never morally permissible. In support of that conclusion he advances a number of arguments. In the second half of the book, the second author identifies a variety of moderate pro-natalist positions, which all see procreation as sometimes permissible but never required.

In this volume, two authors debate the ethics of procreation. One argues for the anti-natalist view that procreation is never morally permissible. In support of that conclusion he advances a number of arguments. In the second half of the book, the second author identifies a variety of moderate pro-natalist positions, which all see procreation as sometimes permissible but never required.

While procreation is ubiquitous, attention to the ethical issues involved in creating children is relatively rare. In Debating Procreation, David Benatar and David Wasserman take opposing views on this important question. David Benatar argues for the anti-natalist view that it is always wrong to bring new people into existence. He argues that coming into existence is always a serious harm and that even if it were not always so, the risk of serious harm is sufficiently great to make procreation wrong. In addition to these "philanthropic" arguments, he advances the "misanthropic" one that because humans are so defective and cause vast amounts of harm, it is wrong to create more of them. David Wasserman defends procreation against the anti-natalist challenge. He outlines a variety of moderate pro-natalist positions, which all see procreation as often permissible but never required. After criticizing the main anti-natalist arguments, he reviews those pronatalist positions. He argues that constraints on procreation are best understood in terms of the role morality of prospective parents, considers different views of that role morality, and argues for one that imposes only limited constraints based on the well-being of the future child. He then argues that the expected good of a future child and of the parent-child relationship can provide a strong justification for procreation in the face of expected adversities without giving individuals any moral reason to procreate

This volume presents both sides of the debate over whether same-sex marriage should be legalized.

A wide-ranging exploration of whether or not choosing to procreate can be morally justified—and if so, how. In contemporary Western society, people are more often called upon to justify the choice not to have children than they are to supply reasons for having them. In this book, Christine Overall maintains that the burden of proof should be reversed: that the choice to have children calls for more careful justification and reasoning than the choice not to. Arguing that the choice to have children is not just a prudential or pragmatic decision but one with ethical repercussions, Overall offers a wide-ranging exploration of how we might think systematically and deeply about this fundamental aspect of human life. Writing from a feminist perspective, she also acknowledges the inevitably gendered nature of the decision; the choice has different meanings, implications, and risks for women than it has for men. After considering a series of ethical approaches to procreation, and finding them inadequate or incomplete, Overall offers instead a novel argument. Exploring the nature of the biological parent-child relationship—which is not only genetic but also psychological, physical, intellectual, and moral—she argues that the formation of that relationship is the best possible reason for choosing to have a child.

Confidence in Life offers a theologically-robust evaluation of the good of procreation, which emerges out of both careful interactions with contemporary analytic philosophy and a reconstructed reading of Karl Barth's doctrine of (pro)creation. While analytic moral philosophy has rarely been brought into close proximity to Barth's work, the conjunction underscores the deep difficulty of accounting for procreation's value within non-theological frameworks, and helps clarify what is distinctive and valuable about Barth's own moral reasoning on this subject. Though primarily staged as an intervention in Protestant moral theology, Confidence in Life's rehabilitation of the Virgin Mary's role in Barth's thought has promise for an ecumenical retrieval of the good of procreating within the economy of redemption-and its retrieval of honour as an indispensable aspect of Barth's theology will be of interest to Barth scholars and moral theologians alike.

Debating Gender, Debating Sexuality incorporates many different and fruitful approaches to understanding gender and sexuality. In this collection, Nikki R. Keddie presents essays, chosen from the journal Contention, written by outstanding scholars and theorists, along with responses to them. Topics discussed include procreation and female oppression, trends in feminist theory, gender and U.S. social policy, Marxism and women's history, the male search for identity today and the works of Foucault and Freud. Contributors include Nicky Hart, Juliet Mitchell, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Barbara Laslett, Sandra Harding, Linda Gordon, Theda Skocpol, Deborah Valenze, Iris Berger, Philippa Levine, Susan Rubin Suleiman, Theodore C. Kent, Roy Porter, Mark Poster, Jeffrey Masson, Frederick Crews, and Jeffrey Prager.