Philosophy Test 2 Study Guide

Philosophy Test 2 Study Guide - There are extra notes that...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
There are extra notes that were comprised with a friend on the bottom. The Ethics of Cloning and Other Bioengineering Will cloning harm people?- Gregory Pence o If there is nothing bad about having twins naturally, why should it be wrong to use cloning techniques to bring about the delayed birth of a twin? o Not wrong o Parallels with In Vitro Fertilization: Repeating History? Critics- Implicit premise: before it is allowed, any new method must prove that only healthy children will be created BUT: sexual reproduction does not guarantee healthy children every time, nor can a person give “consent to be born” Jeremy Rifkin- critic- “we’ve taken the principles of industrial design and applied them to a human being” Nothing in life is risk-free o Humanity will not be harmed Very little will change Expensive process Most IVF attempts are unsuccessful- 25% o SO: originating humans by SCNT will never be common o Women’s rights to abortion are checks on evil uses of any new reproductive technology o New things make us fear harms irrationally SCNT isn’t new or different Originating a child by SCNT is not a breakthrough in kind but a matter of degree along a continuum involving twins and a special kind of reproductive choice o Comparing the harms of human reproduction People exaggerate the fears of the unknown and downplay the real dangers of the familiar Driving a car vs. SCNT How safe must we expect human SCNT to be before we allow it? The embryo-to-birth ratio only seems inefficient because the real inefficiency rate of accepted forms of human assisted reproduction is so little known Loss of embryos and fetuses is almost universally accepted as morally permissible- few people object to the loss of
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
embryos and fetuses in this context of trying to conceive babies o Subjects and Nonsubjects of Harm Loss of human embryos is a normal part of human conception Embryos are not persons with rights to life o Value is all potential, little actual Until 9 weeks after conception Cannot experience pain o Psychological Harm to the Child Nothing about SCNT is linked to bad motives Objections: Depriving the person of an open future because we know how his previous twin lived, we will know how the new child will live o Expectations are only half based in fact To assume true is to assume genetic reductionism Expected harm to the child stems from the predicted, prejudicial attitudes of other people to the SCNT child o Social expectations are merely social expectations Malleable and can change quickly “Humans created by SCNT will be greeted by stigma or experience confusion” o Hypocritical? Divorce has same consequences o Predicted harms of SCNT to humans are: Exaggerated Lack a comparative baseline Stem from irrational fears of the unknown Overlook greater dangers of familiar things Based on the armchair psychological speculation of amateurs
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/18/2008 for the course PHI 153 taught by Professor Hiller during the Spring '08 term at Wake Forest.

Page1 / 21

Philosophy Test 2 Study Guide - There are extra notes that...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online