tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3133078502277941061.post3937552966937360461..comments2023-07-18T08:00:22.009-05:00Comments on Steinblog: Principle Q and ReproductionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3133078502277941061.post-52563412382437294992016-07-29T20:25:25.234-05:002016-07-29T20:25:25.234-05:00Kara,
I think your analogy with Michael Phelps an...Kara,<br /><br />I think your analogy with Michael Phelps and Michelle Obama is extremely funny but also relevant! It is extremely unfair and unjust to make people feel that they are not producing with the correct partner because they could have had a child that is more well-off with another partner. This would dissuade people from reproducing because of love and because they feel a desire to have a child. These two would completely contradict! I think that having a clone is better than denying them a future because for some couples this may be the only option! Perhaps adopting is immoral in some cultures because the child is not directly from their genes and culture. In this case, someone may want to have a clone, giving something a life that it wouldn't have had otherwise. Some homosexual couples may be particularly dissuaded by principle Q, because having the best child they can could be seen as having a child with a woman, and this would contradict people being able to marry whomever they want to. I think principle Q has too many arguments that would apply in all situations; therefore, it is not correct to follow. Hannah Blumnoreply@blogger.com