ABSTRACT
Chapter 3 presents an analysis of the argumentative tools used in the context of medically assisted procreation. It proves that the argumentation of the European Court of Human Rights in such cases gives less consideration to individual perspectives and more weight to the public interest. The analysis contained in the chapter confirms that the European Court of Human Rights refrains from using any arguments that refer to external legal sources or the margin of appreciation as decisive, and shifts the examination of the issues to argumentation related to balancing private and public interests. Thus, the approach of the European Court of Human Rights identified in the chapter is to protect the interests of two groups described in the book as:groups deserving special protection” as part of the public interest: economically disadvantaged women who agree to enter into surrogacy arrangements for financial reasons and children born of medically assisted procreation who in consequence may be brought up in non-standard families. Although the European Court of Human Rights justifies its ruling concerning medically assisted procreation by avoiding direct pronouncements of its moral view, the analysis of selected argumentative tools shows that in some of them – especially the deontological (incrementalism) and teleological (protection of groups deserving special protection) ones – its position on moral issues is clearly visible.
