The Creation Lottery: Final Lessons from Natural Reproduction: Why Those Who Accept Natural Reproduction Should Accept Cloning and Other Frankenstein Reproductive Technologies
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)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
“Unfit for Life”: A Case Study of Protector-Protected Analogies in Recent Advocacy of Eugenics and Coercive Genetic Discrimination. [REVIEW]Mark Munsterhjelm - 2011 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (2):177-189.
Similar books and articles
The New Reproductive Technologies: Defying God's Dominion?Maura Anne Ryan - 1995 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (4):419-438.
New Technologies, Old Distinctions.Max J. Latona - 2004 - Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 78:277-288.
Embryo Research: Are There Any Lessons From Natural Reproduction?Julian Savulescu - 2004 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 13 (1):68-75.
Review: The Growing Feminist Debate Over the New Reproductive Technologies. [REVIEW]Anne Donchin - 1989 - Hypatia 4 (3):136-149.
Begetting, Cloning and Being Human: Two National Commission Reports Against Human Cloning From Italy and the U.S.A.Matteo Galletti - 2006 - HEC Forum 18 (2):156-171.
Reproductive and Therapeutic Cloning, Germline Therapy, and Purchase of Gametes and Embryos: Comments on Canadian Legislation Governing Reproduction Technologies.L. Bernier - 2004 - Journal of Medical Ethics 30 (6):527-532.
Legal Responses to Some of the New Developments in Reproductive Technologies Part.3 The Future of Reproductive Technologies and the Law.Andrew Scott - 2002 - Human Reproduction and Genetic Ethics 8 (2):24 - 28.
Beyond Choice: Reproductive Freedom in the 21st Century.Alexander Sanger - 2004 - Public Affairs.
An Ethic of Care and Responsibility: Reflections on Third-Party Reproduction.Carmel Shalev - 2012 - Medicine Studies 3 (3):147-156.
Islamic Ethical Views in Vitro Fertilization and Human Reproductive Cloning.Leena Al-Qasem - unknown
Third Party Assisted Conception: An African Perspective.Godfrey B. Tangwa - 2008 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29 (5):297-306.
A Review of the Lottery Paradox.Gregory Wheeler - 2007 - In William Harper & Gregory Wheeler (eds.), Probability and Inference: Essays in Honour of Henry E. Kyburg, Jr.
Making Monsters: The Philosophy of Reproduction in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and the Universal Films Frankenstein and the Bride of Frankenstein.Ann C. Hall - 2010 - In Thomas Richard Fahy (ed.), The Philosophy of Horror. University Press of Kentucky.
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]Søren Holm - 2004 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 13 (3):283-287.
Natural Versus Assisted Reproduction. In Search of Fairness.Daniela Cutas & Lisa Bortolotti - 2010 - Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology 4 (1).
Added to index2010-08-24
Total downloads43 ( #122,286 of 2,178,195 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #316,497 of 2,178,195 )
How can I increase my downloads?