Daniel Groll
Carleton College
Cases of non-traditional family-making offer a rich seam for thinking about normative parenthood. Gamete donors are genetically related to the resulting offspring but are not thought to be normative parents. Gestational surrogates are also typically not thought to be normative parents, despite having gestated a child. Adoptive parents are typically thought to be normative parents even though they are neither genetically nor gestationally related to their child. Philosophers have paid attention to these kinds of cases. But they have not paid attention to what the people who have engaged in these forms of family-making have to say about what they’re doing and, more specifically, how they answer the questions: “Who is the normative parent? And why?” Paying attention to their answers reveals two things. First, accounts of parenthood from people involved in two forms of non-traditional family-making – reproduction with gestational surrogacy and reproduction with donated eggs – are mutually inconsistent. This is not surprising. What is surprising is that the contradictory aspects of the views evince a common commitment to, as I shall put it, naturalizing parenthood. The central goal of this paper is to explain what that means, but rough idea is that in naturalizing parenthood, prospective parents aim to put the features that make someone a normative parent beyond the reach of human agency. I conclude by briefly suggesting that we should think of the grounds of normative parenthood – and the very task of theorizing about the grounds of normative parenthood – in a way that avoids the need to naturalize altogether.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2021
DOI 10.1111/josp.12434
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Future of the Family.David Archard - 2012 - Ethics and Social Welfare 6 (2):132-142.
Intentional Parenthood and the Nuclear Family.Liezl van Zyl - 2002 - Journal of Medical Humanities 23 (2):107-118.
Intentional Parenthood and the Nuclear Family.Liezl Zyl - 2002 - Journal of Medical Humanities 23 (1):107-118.
Theories of Family in Ancient Chinese Philosophy.Zailin Zhang - 2009 - Frontiers of Philosophy in China 4 (3):343-359.
Four Models of Family Interests.Daniel Groll - 2014 - Pedatrics 134:S81-S86.
Family Law and the Facts of the Family.Janet L. Dolgin - 1995 - In Sylvia Junko Yanagisako & Carol Lowery Delaney (eds.), Naturalizing Power: Essays in Feminist Cultural Analysis. Routledge. pp. 47--68.
Two Points Against Naturalized Epistemology.Bahaa Darwish - 1998 - The Paideia Archive: Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 45:70-80.
Theories of Family in Ancient Chinese Philosophy.Zhang Zailin & Zhang Shaoqian - 2009 - Frontiers of Philosophy in China 4 (3):343 - 359.


Added to PP index

Total views
140 ( #82,424 of 2,499,202 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
74 ( #10,364 of 2,499,202 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes