John H. Evans
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- February 2013
- ISBN:
- 9780226222653
- eISBN:
- 9780226222707
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- University of Chicago Press
- DOI:
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226222707.001.0001
- Subject:
- Sociology, Science, Technology and Environment
Scientific breakthroughs have led us to a point where soon we will be able to make specific choices about the genetic makeup of our offspring. In fact, this reality has arrived—and it is only a ...
More
Scientific breakthroughs have led us to a point where soon we will be able to make specific choices about the genetic makeup of our offspring. In fact, this reality has arrived—and it is only a matter of time before the technology becomes widespread. Much like past arguments about stem-cell research, the coming debate over these reproductive genetic technologies (RGTs) will be both political and, for many people, religious. In order to understand how the debate will play out in the United States, this book presents an in-depth study of the claims made about RGTs by religious people from across the political spectrum. Some of the opinions this book documents are familiar, but others—such as the idea that certain genetic conditions produce a “meaningful suffering” that is, ultimately, desirable—provide a fascinating glimpse of religious reactions to cutting-edge science. Not surprisingly, the book discovers that for many people opinion on the issue closely relates to their feelings about abortion, but it also finds a shared moral language that offers a way around the unproductive polarization of the abortion debate and other culture-war concerns.Less
Scientific breakthroughs have led us to a point where soon we will be able to make specific choices about the genetic makeup of our offspring. In fact, this reality has arrived—and it is only a matter of time before the technology becomes widespread. Much like past arguments about stem-cell research, the coming debate over these reproductive genetic technologies (RGTs) will be both political and, for many people, religious. In order to understand how the debate will play out in the United States, this book presents an in-depth study of the claims made about RGTs by religious people from across the political spectrum. Some of the opinions this book documents are familiar, but others—such as the idea that certain genetic conditions produce a “meaningful suffering” that is, ultimately, desirable—provide a fascinating glimpse of religious reactions to cutting-edge science. Not surprisingly, the book discovers that for many people opinion on the issue closely relates to their feelings about abortion, but it also finds a shared moral language that offers a way around the unproductive polarization of the abortion debate and other culture-war concerns.
Emily M. Calhoun
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- May 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780195399745
- eISBN:
- 9780199894444
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195399745.003.0008
- Subject:
- Law, Constitutional and Administrative Law
When people discuss what Supreme Court justices should do when asked to resolve passionately contested rights disputes, the topic of abortion inevitably surfaces. This chapter explores failures to ...
More
When people discuss what Supreme Court justices should do when asked to resolve passionately contested rights disputes, the topic of abortion inevitably surfaces. This chapter explores failures to satisfy harm-amelioration and harm-avoidance obligations in two well-known abortion rights decisions: Roe v. Wade and Gonzales v. Carhart. It argues that honoring rather than attacking the constitutional stature of all parties is perhaps the best way that justices can ensure that the Constitution has meaning for “people of fundamentally different views.” It will require justices, however, to be willing to take some risks in their opinions.Less
When people discuss what Supreme Court justices should do when asked to resolve passionately contested rights disputes, the topic of abortion inevitably surfaces. This chapter explores failures to satisfy harm-amelioration and harm-avoidance obligations in two well-known abortion rights decisions: Roe v. Wade and Gonzales v. Carhart. It argues that honoring rather than attacking the constitutional stature of all parties is perhaps the best way that justices can ensure that the Constitution has meaning for “people of fundamentally different views.” It will require justices, however, to be willing to take some risks in their opinions.
