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

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 38 (2):393-410 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

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

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,571

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

On the phenomenon of “return to marx” in china.Ping He - 2007 - Frontiers of Philosophy in China 2 (2):219-229.
Artificial insemination and eugenics: Celibate motherhood, eutelegenesis and germinal choice.Martin Richards - 2008 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 39 (2):211-221.
Ce qui ne revient pas au meme.Stéphane Habib & Raphaël Zagury-Orly - 2006 - Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 14 (1-2):37-54.
Choosing Future People: Reproductive Technologies and Identity.Mark Greene - 2009 - In Vardit Ravitsky, Autumn Fiester & Arthur L. Caplan (eds.), The Penn Center Guide to Bioethics. Springer Publishing Company. pp. 307-317.
Is There Anything Unique in the Ethics of Synthetic Biology?David Heyd - 2012 - Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 55 (4):581-589.
Catholic 'natural law' and reproductive ethics.Edward Collins Vacek - 1992 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17 (3):329-346.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-30

Downloads
33 (#480,801)

6 months
12 (#208,422)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Between the farm and the clinic: agriculture and reproductive technology in the twentieth century.Sarah Wilmot - 2007 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 38 (2):303-315.
Artificial insemination and eugenics: Celibate motherhood, eutelegenesis and germinal choice.Martin Richards - 2008 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 39 (2):211-221.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Utilitarianism.John Stuart Mill - 1863 - Cleveland: Cambridge University Press. Edited by Geraint Williams.
Eutelegenesis.Herbert Brewer - 1935 - The Eugenics Review 27 (2):121.
Should selecting saviour siblings be banned?S. Sheldon - 2004 - Journal of Medical Ethics 30 (6):533-537.

View all 9 references / Add more references