Abstract
Professor Peters defends the nonexistence test, as traditionally construed, as a minimum standard of protection for the not-yet-conceived in light of the debate over harmfulness of reproductive technology. The article goes on to consider arguments for supplementing the nonexistence test in cases of avoidability by substitution and for reinterpreting the test to permit greater intervention than traditional interpretation allows.
How to Cite
31 Ariz. L. Rev. 487 (1989)
106
Views
26
Downloads