The return of the Inseminator: Eutelegenesis in past and contemporary reproductive ethics

Eugenicists in the 1930s and 1940s emphasised our moral responsibilities to future generations and the importance of positively selecting traits that would benefit humanity. In 1935 Herbert Brewer recommended ‘Eutelegenesis’ so that that future generations are not only protected from hereditary disease but also become more intelligent and fraternal than us. The development of these techniques for human use and animal husbandry was the catalyst for the cross fertilization of moral ideas and the development of a critical procreative morality. While eugenicists argued for a new critical morality, religious critics argued against artificial insemination because of its potential to damage important moral institutions. The tension between critical and conservative procreative morality is a feature of the contemporary debates about reproductive technologies. This and some of the other aspects of the early and contemporary debates about artificial insemination and reproductive technologies are discussed in this article
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1016/j.shpsc.2007.03.006
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 24,411
External links
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
Herbert Brewer (1935). Eutelegenesis. The Eugenics Review 27 (2):121.
S. Sheldon (2004). Should Selecting Saviour Siblings Be Banned? Journal of Medical Ethics 30 (6):533-537.

View all 8 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Ping He (2007). On the Phenomenon of “Return to Marx” in China. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 2 (2):219-229.
Stéphane Habib & Raphaël Zagury-Orly (2006). Ce Qui Ne Revient Pas au Meme. Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 14 (1):37-54.
Mark Greene (2009). Choosing Future People: Reproductive Technologies and Identity. In Vardit Ravitsky, Autumn Fiester & Arthur L. Caplan (eds.), The Penn Center Guide to Bioethics. Springer Publishing Company. pp. 307-317.
David Heyd (2013). Is There Anything Unique in the Ethics of Synthetic Biology? Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 55 (4):581-589.
Edward Collins Vacek (1992). Catholic 'Natural Law' and Reproductive Ethics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17 (3):329-346.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

12 ( #355,028 of 1,924,732 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

10 ( #88,353 of 1,924,732 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.