Analysis Of The End Of Sex And The Future Of Human Reproduction
In The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction, Hank Greely conceives of a future where sex is no longer the source for creating babies. Instead, human beings will create babies through preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and in vitro fertilization (IVF). While Greely views this future as inevitable, the use of PGD and IVF poses several ethical issues. The purpose of this essay is to engage with Greely’s presentation. In doing so, I will summarize the main points of his presentation and connect concepts employed during the presentation to Foundations II.
At the onset of his presentation, Greely sets the stage, by disclaiming that “the end of sex” does not mean the end of sex literally. Instead, “the end” can be understood as the …show more content…
In other words, critiques use intuition to make a moral judgment, but cannot further explain their position. Part of the work we do in Foundations II is to understand the premise of these moral reactions. In exploring the foundation to moral reactions, bias may play a vital role. It could be gender, sexual orientation, disability, economic status or some other form of bias that leads a person to view the use of PGD/IVF negatively. Although Greely specifically addressed disability, economics and gender selection, he did not mention how sexual orientation and marital status excludes some from having PGD/IVF as an option. This is why, “we need to be aware of the strengths and limitation of the expertise on which we base our bioethics analysis” (class notes). Although Greely does not mention any experts in his presentation, based on his background, Greely can be considered an expert on the topic of PGD and IVF. While Greely could not cover his entire book in a 15-minute presentation, one limitation of his argument is not providing his stance of the use of PGD/IVF. Greely simply states that this is the future of human reproduction without stating whether it ought to be the future. By not including this question into the framework of the discussion, Greely makes an error in judgment and this error extends to not including other perspectives into his analysis (e.g. feminist
At the onset of his presentation, Greely sets the stage, by disclaiming that “the end of sex” does not mean the end of sex literally. Instead, “the end” can be understood as the …show more content…
In other words, critiques use intuition to make a moral judgment, but cannot further explain their position. Part of the work we do in Foundations II is to understand the premise of these moral reactions. In exploring the foundation to moral reactions, bias may play a vital role. It could be gender, sexual orientation, disability, economic status or some other form of bias that leads a person to view the use of PGD/IVF negatively. Although Greely specifically addressed disability, economics and gender selection, he did not mention how sexual orientation and marital status excludes some from having PGD/IVF as an option. This is why, “we need to be aware of the strengths and limitation of the expertise on which we base our bioethics analysis” (class notes). Although Greely does not mention any experts in his presentation, based on his background, Greely can be considered an expert on the topic of PGD and IVF. While Greely could not cover his entire book in a 15-minute presentation, one limitation of his argument is not providing his stance of the use of PGD/IVF. Greely simply states that this is the future of human reproduction without stating whether it ought to be the future. By not including this question into the framework of the discussion, Greely makes an error in judgment and this error extends to not including other perspectives into his analysis (e.g. feminist