{"title":"设计婴儿——为什么不呢?","authors":"M Evans","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Though many objections can be levelled against the idea of the practice of genetic intervention to produce 'designer babies', upon examination they are shown to hinge on features which concern parental intentions towards their children, rather than features specific to the means involved. These intentions may be pursued by a variety of social practices which may, though need not, involve a measure of 'traditional' genetic selection (i.e. in terms of the identity and characteristics of the reproducing partners). This paper reviews a number of these objections and, by parity of reasoning, rejects their claim to count specifically or decisively against genetic intervention in pursuit of 'designer babies'. Rejecting these objections does not lead to the endorsement of 'designing babies, but it shows that any unease must be grounded elsewhere and defended by other arguments.</p>","PeriodicalId":87199,"journal":{"name":"New Zealand bioethics journal","volume":"2 1","pages":"17-25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Designer babies--why not?\",\"authors\":\"M Evans\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Though many objections can be levelled against the idea of the practice of genetic intervention to produce 'designer babies', upon examination they are shown to hinge on features which concern parental intentions towards their children, rather than features specific to the means involved. These intentions may be pursued by a variety of social practices which may, though need not, involve a measure of 'traditional' genetic selection (i.e. in terms of the identity and characteristics of the reproducing partners). This paper reviews a number of these objections and, by parity of reasoning, rejects their claim to count specifically or decisively against genetic intervention in pursuit of 'designer babies'. Rejecting these objections does not lead to the endorsement of 'designing babies, but it shows that any unease must be grounded elsewhere and defended by other arguments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87199,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Zealand bioethics journal\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"17-25\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Zealand bioethics journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Zealand bioethics journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Though many objections can be levelled against the idea of the practice of genetic intervention to produce 'designer babies', upon examination they are shown to hinge on features which concern parental intentions towards their children, rather than features specific to the means involved. These intentions may be pursued by a variety of social practices which may, though need not, involve a measure of 'traditional' genetic selection (i.e. in terms of the identity and characteristics of the reproducing partners). This paper reviews a number of these objections and, by parity of reasoning, rejects their claim to count specifically or decisively against genetic intervention in pursuit of 'designer babies'. Rejecting these objections does not lead to the endorsement of 'designing babies, but it shows that any unease must be grounded elsewhere and defended by other arguments.