Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ SSRN Electronic Jour...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
SSRN Electronic Journal
Article . 2011 . Peer-reviewed
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Cloning and the LGBTI Family: Cautious Optimism

Authors: Erez, Aloni;

Cloning and the LGBTI Family: Cautious Optimism

Abstract

While fertile, opposite-sex couples can have children who carry a mix of their genes without involving third parties in the reproductive process, this option is not available to the majority of the LGBTI community. If this were simply a biological fact, it would not raise any equal protection or other constitutional issues. However, emerging technologies in the field of reproductive cloning may offer the LGBTI community the chance to have genetically related children - possibly even with a mix of both partners’ genes. As such, bans on federally funding research that would help to refine and ensure the safety and efficacy of these procedures unconstitutionally denies LGBTI couples right to have children that is not similarly denied to opposite-sex couples who enjoy the fruits of research and technology that allow them to conceive without the use of a third party’s organs. Compounding and exacerbating this inequality is the fact that much of the opposition to cloning stems from inaccurate, heterosexist - and, at times, even explicitly homophobic - claims. This article challenges the popular arguments against cloning, suggesting that they are largely fallacious and, in many cases, outright discriminatory. It suggests that reproductive cloning could be incredibly useful for the LGBTI community, and that relegating research on these procedures to the private sphere significantly harms this class. At the same time, cloning should not be treated as the key to LGBTI equality.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Family Characteristics, Financing, Government, Reproductive Techniques, Assisted, Cloning, Organism, Disorders of Sex Development, Homosexuality, Adoption, Bisexuality, Civil Rights, Humans, Parent-Child Relations, Transsexualism, Forecasting

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    1
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
1
Average
Average
Average
bronze