The Creation Lottery: Final Lessons from Natural Reproduction: Why Those Who Accept Natural Reproduction Should Accept Cloning and Other Frankenstein Reproductive Technologies
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 13 (1):90-95 (2004)
Opponents of destructive embryo research, such as embryo rightists, as well as proponents accept that natural reproduction is permissible. There is an alternative to natural reproduction—to remain childless. John Harris began this series of articles by asking, what does a commitment to the permissibility of natural reproduction entail? Harris has argued that a commitment to the permissibility of natural reproduction entails a commitment to the permissibility of destructive embryo research. Julian Savulescu has denied this. However, there are significant areas in which our views have converged
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Mark Munsterhjelm (2011). “Unfit for Life”: A Case Study of Protector-Protected Analogies in Recent Advocacy of Eugenics and Coercive Genetic Discrimination. [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (2):177-189.
Similar books and articles
Maura Anne Ryan (1995). The New Reproductive Technologies: Defying God's Dominion? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (4):419-438.
Max J. Latona (2004). New Technologies, Old Distinctions. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 78:277-288.
Julian Savulescu (2004). Embryo Research: Are There Any Lessons From Natural Reproduction? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 13 (1):68-75.
Anne Donchin (1989). Review: The Growing Feminist Debate Over the New Reproductive Technologies. [REVIEW] Hypatia 4 (3):136-149.
Matteo Galletti (2006). Begetting, Cloning and Being Human: Two National Commission Reports Against Human Cloning From Italy and the U.S.A. HEC Forum 18 (2):156-171.
L. Bernier (2004). Reproductive and Therapeutic Cloning, Germline Therapy, and Purchase of Gametes and Embryos: Comments on Canadian Legislation Governing Reproduction Technologies. Journal of Medical Ethics 30 (6):527-532.
Andrew Scott (2013). Legal Responses to Some of the New Developments in Reproductive Technologies Part.3 The Future of Reproductive Technologies and the Law. Human Reproduction and Genetic Ethics 8 (2):24 - 28.
Carmel Shalev (2012). An Ethic of Care and Responsibility: Reflections on Third-Party Reproduction. Medicine Studies 3 (3):147-156.
Godfrey B. Tangwa (2008). Third Party Assisted Conception: An African Perspective. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29 (5):297-306.
Gregory Wheeler (2007). A Review of the Lottery Paradox. [REVIEW] In William Harper & Gregory Wheeler (eds.), Probability and Inference: Essays in Honour of Henry E. Kyburg, Jr.
Ann C. Hall (2010). Making Monsters: The Philosophy of Reproduction in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and the Universal Films Frankenstein and the Bride of Frankenstein. In Thomas Richard Fahy (ed.), The Philosophy of Horror. University Press of Kentucky
Søren Holm (2004). Response to “The Creation Lottery” by Julian Savulescu and John Harris : The Creation Lottery and Method in Bioethics: A Comment on Savulescu and Harris. [REVIEW] Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 13 (3):283-287.
Daniela Cutas & Lisa Bortolotti (2010). Natural Versus Assisted Reproduction. In Search of Fairness. Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology 4 (1).
Added to index2010-08-24
Total downloads32 ( #121,237 of 1,792,914 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #119,751 of 1,792,914 )
How can I increase my downloads?