Lost in translation: Religious arguments made secular

American Journal of Bioethics

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 29-31

  Strong, Carson ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

APTITUDE; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; CHILD; ETHICS; GENETIC ENHANCEMENT; GENETICS; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; GIFTED CHILD; HUMAN; LITERATURE; NOTE; PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON BIOETHICS; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RELIGION; RELIGIOUS APPROACH; SECULARISM;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON BIOETHICS; RELIGIOUS APPROACH;

APTITUDE; CHILD; CHILD, GIFTED; ETHICAL ANALYSIS; GENETIC ENHANCEMENT; HUMANS; METAPHOR; RELIGION; SECULARISM;

EID: 27844462580     PISSN: 15265161     EISSN: 15360075     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15265160591002737     Document Type: Note

References (6)

1. Botkin, J. R. 1990. Prenatal screening: Professional standards and the limits of parental choice. Obstetrics and Gynecology 75:875-880.
2. Kamm, F. M. 2005. Is there a problem with enhancement? The American Journal of Bioethics 5(3): 5-14.
3. President's Council on Bioethics. 2002. Human cloning and human dignity: An ethical inquiry. Washington, D.C.: President's Council on Bioethics.
4. Sandel, M. J. 2004. The case against perfection: What's wrong with designer children, bionic athletes, and genetic engineering. The Atlantic Monthly 293(3): 51-62.
5. Strong, C. 1993. Tomorrow's prenatal genetic testing: Should we test for "minor" diseases? Archives of Family Medicine 2(11): 1187-1193.
6. Strong, C. 1997. Ethics in reproductive and perinatal medicine: A new framework. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.