Bioethics 27 (2):59-64 (2013)
|Abstract||A number of authors have objected to potential parents' use of reproductive genetic technologies on the grounds that the use of these technologies reflects a morally problematic attitude toward parenting. More specifically, proponents of this view have argued that such a choice is inconsistent with the unconditional acceptance that lies at the heart of praiseworthy parental attitudes. This paper offers a rebuttal of this view by arguing that it is possible for a parent to exhibit unconditional acceptance of the child herself without accepting each of that child's traits. If this is true, the use of reproductive genetic technologies does not inherently undermine appropriate parental attitudes. Further, by working to change some of a child's specific traits, a parent may instead exemplify an aspirational aspect of praiseworthy parenting and so demonstrate appropriate parental attitudes|
|Keywords||decision‐making parent reproductive technologies genetic ethics|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Timothy F. Murphy (2005). Gay Science: Assisted Reproductive Technologies and the Sexual Orientation of Children. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 10 (Sup. 1):102-106.
Janet Malek (2007). Understanding Risks and Benefits in Research on Reproductive Genetic Technologies. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (4):339 – 358.
Lisa Bortolotti & Daniela Cutas (2009). Reproductive and Parental Autonomy: An Argument for Compulsory Parental Education. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 19 (ethics suppl.):5-14.
Jessica Hammond (2010). Genetic Engineering to Avoid Genetic Neglect: From Chance to Responsibility. Bioethics 24 (4):160-169.
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.
S. Matthew Liao (2008). Selecting Children: The Ethics of Reproductive Genetic Engineering. Philosophy Compass 3 (5):973-991.
Helen Watt (2004). Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis: Choosing the “Good Enough” Child. [REVIEW] Health Care Analysis 12 (1):51-60.
Kirsten Rabe Smolensky, Parental Tort Liability for Direct Preimplantation Genetic Interventions: Technological Harms, the Social Model of Disability, and Questions of Identity.
Mianna Lotz (2009). Procreative Reasons-Relevance: On the Moral Significance of Why We Have Children. Bioethics 23 (5):291-299.
Janet Malek (2006). Identity, Harm, and the Ethics of Reproductive Technology. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31 (1):83 – 95.
Jeffrey P. Kahn & Anna C. Mastroianni (2004). Creating a Stem Cell Donor: A Case Study in Reproductive Genetics. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (1):81-96.
Judith Andre, Leonard M. Fleck & Thomas Tomlinson (2000). On Being Genetically "Irresponsible&Quot;. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 10 (2):129-146.
Philip G. Peters (2004). How Safe is Safe Enough?: Obligations to the Children of Reproductive Technology. OUP Oxford.
Margaret Somerville (2011). Children's Human Rights to Natural Biological Origins and Family Structure. Bioethics Research Notes 23 (1):1.
Thérèse Murphy (2009). The Texture of Reproductive Choice : Law, Ethnography, and Reproductive Technologies. In Thérèse Murphy (ed.), New Technologies and Human Rights. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2011-07-05
Total downloads19 ( #71,180 of 722,836 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,836 )
How can I increase my downloads?