There’s been considerable media attention surrounding a recent breakthrough in the development of a male birth-control pill (MBCP).
Do we want a truly liberal society?
by Russell BlackfordThe goal of a liberal society puts obligations on its citizens, that we practice reasonableness and openness to ideas, that we do not just tolerate one another but support one another to our fullest flourishing. A liberal society is not neutral about values like disease and health, sloth and effort, deceit and integrity, cowardice and courage. There are excellences that citizens of a liberal society must promote to survive. [Discuss this article in IEET Fora]
The Ethics of Designer Children
by Mike PolyakovIn the last two decades, our rapidly developing biotechnology has brought us into the realm of human genetic engineering. We are now able to not only screen for many diseases and a few genetic characteristics, but are on the verge of being able to select characteristics of a child.
Postgenderism: Beyond the Gender Binary (IEET White Paper 03)
by George DvorskyAn IEET White Paper by By George Dvorsky and James Hughes.
This essay is forthcoming in an edited book on gender and reproductive technologies, but in a shorter, revised form. So we wanted to share this IEET White Paper version with our readership for comment and improvement that we can use in revising the book chapter.
Abstract: Postgenderism is an extrapolation of ways that technology is eroding the biological, psychological and social role of gender, and an argument for why the erosion of binary gender will be liberatory. Postgenderists argue that gender is an arbitrary and unnecessary limitation on human potential, and foresee the elimination of involuntary biological and psychological gendering in the human species through the application of neurotechnology, biotechnology and reproductive technologies. Postgenderists contend that dyadic gender roles and sexual dimorphisms are generally to the detriment of individuals and society. Assisted reproduction will make it possible for individuals of any sex to reproduce in any combinations they choose, with or without “mothers” and “fathers,” and artificial wombs will make biological wombs unnecessary for reproduction. Greater biological fluidity and psychological androgyny will allow future persons to explore both masculine and feminine aspects of personality. Postgenderists do not call for the end of all gender traits, or universal androgyny, but rather that those traits become a matter of choice. Bodies and personalities in our postgender future will no longer be constrained and circumscribed by gendered traits, but enriched by their use in the palette of diverse self-expression.
Download the Complete Document (PDF)
Heather writes on UK Repro Rights
IEET Intern Heather Bradshaw has published an article in the UK newsletter BioNews on
“Why it should not be illegal to implant ‘abnormal’ embryos.”
Poll: When Reproductive Cloning is Safe?
The folks visiting the IEET appear to be a little more liberal on the topic of reproductive cloning than the average homo sapien, since nine out of ten of you voted to make it a legal reproductive choice once it is safe.
Origins and Theory of the World Transhumanist Association
by NoneAndres Lomena recently conducted an interview for the Spanish magazine Cronopis with the Chair of the IEET’s Board of directors Nick Bostrom, as well as with IEET friend David Pearce, about their co-founding of the World Transhumanist Association and related topics. They have kindly allowed us to reprint the interview here.
Genetics, ethics, and the state - revisited
by Russell BlackfordFor the past decade, the public sphere has buzzed with arguments about real or imagined genetic technologies, such as embryonic sex selection, reproductive cloning, and human genetic enhancement - much of the noise prompted by the announcement, back in 1997, of Dolly the cloned sheep. How far have we come in that time?
Genetic Selection for Human Enhancement
by Andy MiahAbstract This paper examines the UK regulatory framework and the ethical arguments surrounding the use of genetic tests, specifically considering how they would apply to selecting for enhanced health characteristics.
Canadian couples discover sex selection loophole
by George DvorskyIt’s funny how we pick our battles. While I try to focus on some of the more important social issues facing Canadians, there are some minor annoyances that will get a rise out of me every time.
Sex Selection and Women’s Reproductive Rights
by J. HughesResponding with alarm to the U.S. Supreme Court decision permitting the banning of late-term abortions reproductive rights activists have insisted that any restrictions on a woman’s right to choose must be fought.
Reproductive cloning and slippery slope arguments
by Russell BlackfordIn his bioethics blog last week, Udo Schuklenk published some of the most sensible words written by anyone so far about the human cloning debate. He begins with the uncompromising - but clearly correct - claim that, “The reproductive cloning debate was undoubtedly ‘won’ by Luddites.”
Mameli defends reproductive technologies
by Russell BlackfordA recent Journal of Medical Ethics article by Matteo Mameli challenges two versions of the popular argument that human reproductive cloning and genetic engineering should be prohibited because they would undermine the autonomy of children. The reference is M. Mameli, “Reproductive cloning, genetic engineering and the autonomy of the child”, Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (2007): 87-93.
Bailey on Fukuyama’s ‘eugenics’
by George DvorskyLooks like I’m not the only one who interprets over-the-top regulation of human biotech as a form of eugenics. Reason science correspondent Ronald Bailey has penned a piece in which he warns, “Francis Fukuyama wants to control your reproductive decisions.”
Neugenic Nation
by George DvorskyEugenics. It is a word that has come to mean different things to different people.
Poll: Should disabling kids before conception be legal?
The majority say it should be illegal to disable a child by choice or genetic modification before conception, but almost a third think it should be legal and subsidized.
New poll: Is nuclear power part of the solution to the carbon emissions problem?
What’s so dystopian about the Biotech Age?
by Russell BlackfordThe bioconservative handbook, Rights and Liberties in the Biotech Age: Why We Need a Genetic Bill of Rights, is an uneven read.
Huffington Post on enhancement and transhumanism
by Russell BlackfordOver at the Huffington Post, R.J. Eskow blogged earlier this week about enhancement technologies and transhumanism, commenting specifically on my piece about Fenton and Fukuyama from last weekend.
Kids, clones, and rights
by Russell BlackfordI’m currently reading Beyond Bioethics, the extensive report on proposed regulation of reproductive technologies, prepared by Francis Fukuyama and Franco Furger and published late last year. I lost patience on about page 64, when I reached its exposition of the moral principles on which it relies. Really, this is all nonsense.
Poll: Should doctors be imprisoned for telling pregnant women the sex of their fetus?
(Opened Jan 20, 2007; closed Jan 27, 2007)
Looks like our readers don’t think so.
I guess the next question is whether we should be supporting or opposing laws that are imprisoning doctors in India today for telling women the sex of their feti? But I’ll ask that later.
The new poll question (which closes 2007-01-27) is “What do you think about the utopian impulse?”
The genetic fallacy fallacy
by Russell BlackfordRichard Garner, in his interesting book Beyond Morality, discusses what he calls the genetic fallacy fallacy.
Americans get a taste of Canadian biopolitics
by George DvorskyNow that George Bush has vetoed a bill rejecting legislation passed by Congress that would have expanded federal research on embryonic stem cells, Americans have been given a taste of what Canadians have had to deal with for the past four years.
Diagramming Sentences of Value: Evolving Human Rights and the Terms of Geoethical Nanotechnology
by Wrye SententiaTalk at 1st Annual Workshop on Geoethical Nanotechnology, July 20, 2005 by Wrye Sententia, Ph.D., Director, Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethic.
Cloning As A Valid Reproductive Choice
by J. HughesReproductive cloning should be a legal reproductive option once it is safe, even if the right to clone is not a very important right.
Buddhism and Abortion: A Western Approach
by J. HughesIntroduction
I once believed it important to determine the “Buddhist view” on many social and political questions. Today I’m much more circumspect. Buddhist texts offer few coherent views outside of the core doctrinal elements. Consequently, Buddhists, to an even greater degree than most religionists, are required to address contemporary problems in the spirit of their teachings, rather than according to the letter of their law.
In the case of abortion, classical Buddhist texts, from the Pali canon through the Mahayana sutras, offer no specific guidance. Even if there was a specific, classical Buddhist text addressing the moral status of the fetus and the act of abortion, it would not be consistent with “Buddhism” to accept this teaching uncritically. Buddhism encodes with its teachings a reflexive, dynamic, self-critical element, beginning with the Kalama Sutra, which encourages Buddhists not to simply follow scriptures, but to continually adapt the Dharma to new audiences.
Consequently, a Buddhist approach to abortion has more to do with approaching the issue with a characteristic set of concerns, and in dialogue with a vast body of texts and teachers. It therefore comes as little surprise that most Western and Japanese Buddhists come away believing in the permissibility of abortion, while many other Buddhists believe abortion to be murder. In this essay I would like to sketch some of the reasons why most Western Buddhists accept abortion as an unfortunate but necessary part of women’s reproductive health care.
Duplicity about Duplication: Cloning as Lens for Millenial Angst
by J. HughesIn late February a wave of hysterical, technophobic paranoia swept the world with the announcement that Scottish scientists had cloned a sheep. Reported as the first successful cloned mammal, it was quickly followed by American claims of successfully cloned monkeys. The media promoted stories as heralding the immanent cloning of humans. The mantra of “brave new world” was intoned endlessly, as reporters breathlessly conjured images of millions of pencil-mustachioed Austrian painters.
Embracing Change with All Four Arms: A Post-Humanist Defense of Genetic Engineering
by J. HughesEubios
Journal of Asian and International Bioethics June 1996, 6(4):94-101in Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Science, Technology, and Society , Fourth Edition, ed. Thomas A. Easton. Dushkin/McGraw Hill, 2000 and translated into German in Telepolis
1. Introduction
2. Distinctions without a Difference
3. Ethical Starting Points for A Defense
5. ConclusionA. Rule Utilitarianism
B. Privacy, Self-Determination and Bodily Autonomy
C. Freedom from Biological Necessity
D. Justice and a Better Society
E. A Critical Defense4. Arguments Against Genetic Technology A. Bio-Luddism 1 : Medicine Makes People Sick B. Bio-Luddism 2 : Sacred Limits of the Natural Order C. Bio-Luddism 3 : Technologies Serve Ruling Interests D. Bio-Luddism 4 : The Genome is Too Complicated to Engineer E. Gene Angst 1 : Fascist Applications F. Gene Angst 2 : The Value of Genetic Diversity H. Gene Angst 3 : The Geneticization of Life I. Gene Angst 4 : Genetic Discrimination and Confidentiality J. Gene Angst 5 : Systematically Bad Decisions by Parents for Children K. Gene Angst 6 : Discrimination Against the Disabled L. Gene Angst 7 : Unequal Access, Priority Setting and the Market M. Gene Angst 8 : The Decline of Social Solidarity
Bibliography
Abstract
This paper sets out to defend human genetic engineering with a new bioethical approach, post-humanism, combined with a radical democratic political framework. Arguments for the restriction of human genetic engineering, and specifically germ-line enhancement, are reviewed. Arguments are divided into those which are fundamental matters of faith, or "bio-Luddite" arguments, and those which can be addressed through public policy, or "gene-angst" arguments.
The four bio-Luddite concerns addressed are: Medicine Makes People Sick; There are Sacred Limits of the Natural Order; Technologies Always Serve Ruling Interests; The Genome is Too Complicated to Engineer. I argue that these are matters of faith that one either accepts or rejects, and that I reject.
The non-fundamentalist or pragmatic concerns I discuss are: Fascist Applications; The Value of Genetic Diversity; The Geneticization of Life; Genetic Discrimination and Confidentiality; Systematically Bad Decisions by Parents; Discrimination Against the Disabled; Unequal Access; The Decline of Social Solidarity. I conclude that all these concerns can be adequately addressed through a proactive regulative framework administered by a liberal democratic state. Therefore, even germ-line genetic enhancement should eventually made available since the potential benefits greatly outweigh the potential risks.
Den Wandel mit aller Entschlossenheit ergreifen
by J. HughesEin posthumanistisches Plädoyer für die Gentechnologie
Über eine Bioethik wird in Deutschland noch wenig öffentlich diskutiert. Die neuen Biotechnologien werfen jedoch viele Fragen und Probleme auf, die tief in unser Verständnis von Leben und Person eingreifen werden. Der Bioethiker James Hughes hat ein entschiedenes und provozierendes Plädoyer für die intensive Nutzung der Gentechnologie verfaßt, das wir in Telepolis zur Diskussion stellen wollen.
Page 1 of 1 pages
IEET Blog