Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Such interventions do not eliminate the child's ability t... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Genetic interventions for traits such as athleticism or great vision are morally acceptable even if they narrow some life opportunities.

    Such interventions do not eliminate the child's ability to choose how her life goes.

    BioethicsMoral Responsibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityBioethics

    Connections

    1 topic

    Rights & Liberty2 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Moral Responsibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Genetic interventions for traits such as athleticism or great vision are morally...The child's future remains open enough for meaningful self-determination.

    Similar

    Genetic interventions that narrow but do not eliminate a child's futur...83%Genetic interventions should be aimed at what is reasonably in the chi...78%A future that is narrowed but still allows the child to choose how her...75%The child's future remains open enough for meaningful self-determinati...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: eugenics
    View source passageHide passage
    Constraints on parental reproductive decisions about what traits to choose can also be seen as conflicting with reproductive freedom and parental autonomy. For instance, Green (2007) rejects the “right to an open future” language in part because he thinks parents must be allowed to do things that are more for their own interests than for the sake of their children, even when doing so affects how the children develop. Following William Ruddick (2007), he thinks of parents as both guardians and ga

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective