[Digressions on heterologous artificial fertilization: was a law born or has the law died?] The Constitutional Court with the judgment of 9 April 2014, n. 162, declared illegal the ban on heterologous artificial fertilization for infertile couples who are infertile or irreversibly, on the assumption that, in the balancing of rights of parents to have a family with children, and the unborn child to know their biological origins, the first should prevail, since the latter is already "suitably" protected by the rules of its adoption. The study examines the line of argument of this arrest, concluding that the neo-right to a family with children is not into, to start art. 30 Const., a convincing foundation of value.
Variazioni sul tema della fecondazione artificiale eterologa: è nato un diritto, è morto il diritto?
AZZARO, ANDREA MARIA
2015
Abstract
[Digressions on heterologous artificial fertilization: was a law born or has the law died?] The Constitutional Court with the judgment of 9 April 2014, n. 162, declared illegal the ban on heterologous artificial fertilization for infertile couples who are infertile or irreversibly, on the assumption that, in the balancing of rights of parents to have a family with children, and the unborn child to know their biological origins, the first should prevail, since the latter is already "suitably" protected by the rules of its adoption. The study examines the line of argument of this arrest, concluding that the neo-right to a family with children is not into, to start art. 30 Const., a convincing foundation of value.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
