设计婴儿——为什么不呢?

New Zealand bioethics journal Pub Date : 2001-02-01
M Evans
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管许多人反对通过基因干预来生产“设计婴儿”的想法,但经过检查,它们显示出与父母对孩子的意图有关的特征,而不是特定于所涉及的手段。这些意图可以通过各种社会实践来实现,这些社会实践可能(虽然不需要)涉及某种程度的“传统”遗传选择(即在生殖伴侣的身份和特征方面)。本文回顾了这些反对意见,并通过平等的推理,拒绝了他们的主张,即明确或果断地反对基因干预,以追求“设计婴儿”。拒绝这些反对意见并不意味着支持“设计婴儿”,但它表明,任何不安都必须有其他理由,并由其他论点来辩护。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Designer babies--why not?

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
In that case: Shane is a professional rugby player who has a contract with a Super 12 team. Response. New Zealand's ethics committees. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. Protection of health research participants in the United States: a review of two cases. Cytogeneticists' stories around the ethics and social consequences of their work: a New Zealand case study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1