1 Privileging Adoption over Sexual Reproduction? A State-Centered Perspective Jurgen De Wispelaere and Daniel Weinstock McGill University 1. Introduction In a recent paper, we argued that states ought to regulate access to assisted reproduction technologies (ARTs) in order to privilege adoption among prospective parents who cannot acquire children “naturally”. 1 They ought to do so, we argued, because there is a morally significant asymmetry between the interests of children who are already born and who for a variety of reasons do not have parents, and the interests of unborn children. Implicit in our discussion is the view that the very important interest that adults have in being able to parent – in the event that they decide to do so – are equally realized whatever the means through which children are “acquired”; that is, whether through natural reproduction, ART, or adoption. This interest, we argued, grounds a pro tanto right to become a parent; but it fails to ground an equivalent right to parent a child with which one has genetic or gestational links. Parenting one’s own biological child in our view amounts to something like an expensive taste. In our earlier work, we argued that a pricing mechanism could be legitimately adopted to regulate access to ART, where access would be priced such that it maximizes adoption amongst children in need of a family. However, in our scheme we also insisted pricing should remain sensitive to the real access that parents have to potential adoptees, not merely the number of children currently institutionalized or otherwise in need of a family. When regulating access to ART we must take into account the many hurdles and obstacles to prospective parents’ ability to adopt children. 2 In a nutshell, the harder it is to adopt, the lower the price tag attached to artificial reproduction. One important implication of the proposed scheme is that it appears to create an objectionable inequality between parents who can procreate naturally and those who cannot. Parents who have the ability to procreate without assistance seem to be exempted from contributing to the satisfaction of the very strong interests that potential adoptees have in finding homes within which to be 1 Jurgen De Wispelaere and Daniel Weinstock (2014) “State Regulation and Assisted Reproduction: Balancing the Interests of Parents and Children”, in F. Baylis and C. Mcleod (eds.), Family- 2 See Carolyn McLeod and Andrew Botterell (2014) “‘Not for the Faint of Heart’: Assessing the Status Quo on Adoption and Parental Licensing”, in F. Baylis and C. Mcleod (eds.), Family- Making: Contemporary Ethical Challenges, Oxford: Oxford University Press.