Compare Foxs The Case for Animal Experimentation vs Darnovskys Revisi

Foxs The Case for Animal Experimentation Chapter 2 and 3 and Darnovskys RevisitingSex alternative1. What is the challenge/problem presented in this article?Darnovskys article explores the upcoming deterrent example challenges that are tied to therenewed interest in marketing stir selection to parents. There are a myriad of ethicalissues tied to the option of deciding the sex of ones child that fall faraway outside the scope ofthe question Are we playing God? However, it is the implications of the option todecide the gender of a baby that are more profoundly disturbing. In a society whereperfection in appearance and brains is already prized above all else, it seems unlikelythat wealthy parents could resist the urge to guarantee that their child pass on be, really andtruly perfect. In the class discussion following her presentation, the sentiment that noone would try to make their baby perfect, emerged. This is easily refutable by the workalready being done in the field towards th is end, as advantageously as the phenomenon of babyEinstein products and other contemporary voodoo that call in parents that their babieswill score extremely high on the SATs.Darnovsky explains the possible repercussions of the irresponsible marketing ofsex selection including the challenges it will present to feminism, the resurgence ofeugenics as well as the key transnational issues that are at stake. One of the biggestdangers highlighted is the rapid pace at which technologies are progressing. Darnovskydescribes new technology like a fugitive train progressing far faster than correspondingethical considerations.In The Case for Animal Experimentation by Michael Fox, the philosophical,evolutionary and moral issues surrounding... ...ith Michael Fox that the unique benignant capacities make us verydistinct from other animal species. However, we believe that saying that these capacitiesmake us a superior species is an anthropocentric viewpoint, because it stems from theidea that our smudge in the world is the best possible. We do not think animals should bedenied full membership in the moral community because of their lack of autonomyand moral agency. This judgment is entirely based on anthropocentric ideas of animalssocial organization and emotions. We do not agree with Fox that animals lives lackintrinsic respect and that they are essentially meant for us to be used.Works CitedDarnovsky, Marcy. 2004. Revisiting Sex Selection. GeneWatch Volume 17Number 1.Fox, Michael Allen. 1986. The Case for Animal Experimentation. pp. 31-90.Berkeley University of California Press.