Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-p5m67 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-23T23:21:02.564Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coming Down to Earth on Cloning: An Ecofeminist Analysis of Homophobia in the Current Debate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Victoria Davion
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this essay, Davion argues that many arguments appealing to an “intuition” that reproductive cloning is morally wrong because it is “unnatural” rely upon an underlying moral assumption that only heterosexuality is “natural,” an assumption that grounds extreme homophobia in America. Therefore, critics of cloning who are in favor of gay and lesbian equality have reasons to avoid prescriptive appeals to the so-called “natural” in making their arguments. Davion then suggests anticloning arguments that do not make such appeals.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , Fall 2006 , pp. 58 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Card, Claudia. 1996. The unnatural lottery: Character and moral luck. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Cuomo, Chris. 1998. Feminism and ecological communities: An ethic of flourishing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Davion, Victoria. 1994. Is ecofeminism feminist? In Ecological feminism, ed. Warren, Karen J.New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, Paul R., and Ehrlich, Anne H. 1991. Healing the planet. New York: Addison‐Wesley.Google Scholar
Kass, Leon. 1997. The wisdom of repugnance. New Republic (2 June): 17–26.Google ScholarPubMed
Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand County almanac and other essays on conservation from Round River. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
New York Times. 2002. The pro‐life case for cloning. 2 May, A26.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha C., and Sunstein, Cass R., eds. 1998. Clones and clones: Facts and fantasies about human cloning. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Overall, Christine. 1987. Ethics and human reproduction: A feminist analysis. Boston: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Plumwood, Val. 1993. Feminism and the mastery of nature. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Roberts, Dorothy E. 1999. Race and the new reproduction. In Moral issues in global perspectives, ed. Koggel, Christine. Toronto: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Salleh, A. K. 1984. Deeper than deep ecology: The ecofeminist connection. Environmental Ethics 6 (4): 339–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturgeon, Noel. 1997. Ecofeminist natures: Race, gender, feminist theory, and political action. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Time/CNN. 2001. Opinion Poll. 7–8 February.Google Scholar
Wachbroit, Robert. 1997. Genetic encores: The ethics of human cloning. Philosophy & Public Policy 17 (4): 1–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Warren, Karen J. ed. 1994. Ecological Feminism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Warren, Karen J. ed. 2000. Ecofeminist philosophy: A Western perspective on what it is and why it matters. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. Washington Post. 2001. Editorial (March).Google Scholar