Graduate studies at Western
Hastings Center Report 35 (4):34-39 (2005)
|Abstract||: Taken at face value, pet cloning may seem at best a frivolous practice, costly both to the cloned pet's health and its owner's pocket. At worst, its critics say, it is misguided and unhealthy—a way of exploiting grief to the detriment of the animal, its owner, and perhaps even animal welfare in general. But if the great pains we are willing to take to clone Fido raise the status of companion animals in the public eye, then the practice might be defensible|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Debra R. Comer & Gina Vega (2005). An Experiential Exercise That Introduces the Concept of the Personal Ethical Threshold to Develop Moral Courage. Journal of Business Ethics Education 2 (2):171-197.
Carol J. Adams (1994). Bringing Peace Home: A Feminist Philosophical Perspective on the Abuse of Women, Children, and Pet Animals. Hypatia 9 (2):63 - 84.
Stephen Schiffer (1987). The `Fido'-Fido Theory of Belief. Philosophical Perspectives 1:455-480.
Philip Howell (2002). A Place for the Animal Dead: Pets, Pet Cemeteries and Animal Ethics in Late Victorian Britain. Ethics, Place and Environment 5 (1):5 – 22.
Paul B. Thompson (1999). Ethical Issues in Livestock Cloning. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 11 (3):197-217.
C. F. Gethmann & F. Thiele (2001). Moral Arguments Against the Cloning of Humans. Poiesis and Praxis 1 (1):35-46.
Robert S. Stufflebeam & William P. Bechtel (1997). PET: Exploring the Myth and the Method. Philsophy of Science 64 (4):95-106.
Mark Greene (2002). New Dog: Old Tricks. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 5 (3):239-242.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads17 ( #78,143 of 739,360 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,360 )
How can I increase my downloads?