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

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
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1016/j.shpsc.2007.03.006
Options
 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
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 29,478
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
Should Selecting Saviour Siblings Be Banned?S. Sheldon - 2004 - Journal of Medical Ethics 30 (6):533-537.
Eutelegenesis.Herbert Brewer - 1935 - The Eugenics Review 27 (2):121.

View all 8 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
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 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 39 (2):211-221.

Add more citations

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 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):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.
Added to PP index
2010-08-30

Total downloads
12 ( #382,936 of 2,180,552 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #105,114 of 2,180,552 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums