800 word paper ( double spaced, apa-style bibliography) and a final

We're the ideal place for homework help. If you are looking for affordable, custom-written, high-quality and non-plagiarized papers, your student life just became easier with us. Click either of the buttons below to place your order.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

1. final must be taken at 9am eastern standard time on may 17th. 50 multiple choice questions. powerpoints provided. 

2. Read the article and formulate a statement answering the provided research questions

Based on the question and your thesis statement, you will have to analyse the news story below using concepts and examples learned in class. Write a well-organized and clearly- argued 4-5 paragraph paper that includes the following details:

2. Analysis

  1. (a)  A statement of how the demonization of Islam gets normalized based on stereotypes and how this has led to the Muslim Travel Ban under Trump. (introduction: 1 paragraph)
  2. (b)  Describe and elaborate on how such cultural identity informs pre- and post-Muslim Ban politics and policies. (2 paragraph of 200-250 words/paragraph)
  3. (c)  In conclusion, propose your own well-informed vision of how the issue raised in the case in question marginalizes the Muslim community in the US and what measures the Biden administration could take to counter this (1-2 paragraphs)

At least three citations to three different peer-reviewed reading in APA style

Applied Jurisprudence

Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis
Part 2

Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis

2. Screening for Superficial Desired Traits

Introduction

Screening for Superficial Desired Traits

Introduction: Superficial Desired Traits

Another more controversial application of PGD is to use it to
screen embryos for – and discard embryos that lack – certain
superficial desired traits such as sex, eye color, hair color, skin tone
etc. prior to uterine transfer (so that only embryos that possess
those superficial desired traits are transferred into the uterus)

▪ The resulting children are often referred to as “designer babies”

Introduction: Superficial Desired Traits

Procedure for Using PGD to Screen
Embryos for Superficial Desired Traits

▪ Embryos created through IVF are tested for the existence of
certain superficial desired traits

▪ Only those embryos that possess those superficial desired
traits are transferred into the uterus

Watch Movie: “GATTACA”

Normative Jurisprudence

Screening for Superficial Desired Traits

Normative Jurisprudence
The Relationship Between Law & Morality

Normative Jurisprudence: Superficial Desired Traits
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Deontological Ethical Theories

Natural Law

▪ According to Natural Law, using PGD to screen embryos for
superficial desired traits is Always Immoral

• Rationale:
o The right to life is the most supreme natural right.

o We have a moral obligation to protect life – especially innocent
& defenseless life (embryos).

o Screening embryos for superficial desired traits is immoral
because it violates the discarding embryos’ fundamental and
inalienable right to life.

Normative Jurisprudence: Superficial Desired Traits
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Deontological Ethical Theories (continued)

Kantian Ethics
▪ According to Kantian Ethics, using PGD to screen embryos for

superficial desired traits is Always Immoral
• All human life has intrinsic and equal value regardless of whether it is

born or unborn and regardless of whether it possesses certain superficial
desired traits
o Lacking a certain superficial desired trait does not rob an

embryo’s life of value or justify ending its life

Normative Jurisprudence: Superficial Desired Traits
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Deontological Ethical Theories (continued)

Kantian Ethics (continued)
• Since all human life has value, we have a duty to treat both embryos and

people with dignity (as an end unto themselves, rather than as a means
to an end)
o Using PGD to screen embryos for superficial desired traits is immoral

because it treats embryos that lack certain superficial desired traits as a
means to an end (they are created and then destroyed so that
family can achieve happiness)

o Using PGD to screen embryos for superficial desired traits is also
immoral because it treats the resulting child (who possesses the
superficial desired traits) as a means to an end (they are created
and used to gratify their parents rather than to be loved and
accepted unconditionally)

Normative Jurisprudence: Superficial Desired Traits
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories

Utilitarianism

▪ According to Utilitarianism, using PGD to screen embryos for
superficial desired traits can be Moral or Immoral
• Whether using PGD to screen embryos for superficial desired traits

is moral depends on whether it produces the greatest good for the greatest
number of people.

• We must make this determination on a case-by-case basis by tallying the
positive & negative consequences of (the good & bad that will result from)
each couple’s decision to use PGD to screen embryos for superficial desired
traits

Normative Jurisprudence: Superficial Desired Traits
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories (continued)

Utilitarianism (continued)
• When determining the morality of using PGD to screen embryos for

superficial desired traits, we must weigh the potentially positive
consequences that it might have for some people against the potentially
negative consequences that it might have for others

▪ Rationale for the View that Using PGD to Screen Embryos for
Superficial Desired Traits is Moral

• The Positive Consequences of Using PGD to Screen Embryos for
Superficial Desired Traits Outweigh Its Negative Consequences

Normative Jurisprudence: Superficial Desired Traits
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories (continued)

Utilitarianism (continued)
▪ Rationale for the View that Using PGD to Screen Embryos for

Superficial Desired Traits is Moral (continued)
o Potentially Positive Consequences of Using PGD to Screen

Embryos for Superficial Desired Traits

▪ It poses no harm

▪ Parents Have the Right to Improve the Wellbeing of Their
Children/Give Children the Best Chance of Success

▪ Parents Should Be Able to Model Kids Before Birth Just As They
Do After Birth

Normative Jurisprudence: Superficial Desired Traits
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories (continued)

Utilitarianism (continued)
▪ Rationale for the View that Using PGD to Screen Embryos for

Superficial Desired Traits is Immoral
• The Negative Consequences of Using PGD to Screen Embryos for

Superficial Desired Traits Outweigh Its Positive Consequences
o Potentially Negative Consequences of Using PGD to Screen

Embryos for Superficial Desired Traits
▪ It violates the discarded embryos’ right to life
▪ It devalues the sanctity human life
▪ It could lead to increased discrimination & stigmatization

against the genetically inferior

Normative Jurisprudence: Genetic Defects & Diseases
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories (continued)

Utilitarianism (continued)
▪ Rationale for the View that Using PGD to Screen Embryos for

Superficial Desired Traits is Immoral (continued)
o Potentially Negative Consequences of Using PGD to Screen

Embryos for Superficial Desired Traits(continued)
▪ It could reduce the genetic diversity of the human species
▪ It’s a slippery slope to eugenics
▪ The resulting child could suffer adverse psychological

consequences
• They could be used solely as a means to gratify their parents;
• They could be burdened with living up to the standards they

were designed to meet.
• They could fail to live up to the standards they were designed

to meet.

Normative Jurisprudence: Superficial Desired Traits
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories (continued)

Ethical Altruism
▪ According to Ethical Altruism, Using PGD to Screen Embryos for

Superficial Desired Traits can be Moral or Immoral

• Using PGD to Screen for Superficial Desired Traits Is Moral if it was
done for unselfish reasons (solely to benefit someone else)
o e.g. Using PGD to screen for superficial desired traits in order to

give your child the best chance of success and happiness in life

• Using PGD to Screen for Superficial Desired Traits Is Immoral if it
was done for selfish reasons (solely to benefit yourself)
o e.g. Using PGD to screen for superficial desired traits so that you

can live vicariously through your child who would be able to
achieve what you always wanted – but were unable – to achieve.

Normative Jurisprudence: Superficial Desired Traits
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories (continued)

Ethical Egoism
▪ According to Ethical Egoism, Using PGD to Screen Embryos for

Superficial Desired Traits can be Moral or Immoral

• Using PGD to Screen for Superficial Desired Traits Is Moral if it was
done for selfish reasons (solely to benefit yourself)
o e.g. Using PGD to screen for superficial desired traits so that you

can live vicariously through your child who would be able to
achieve what you always wanted – but were unable – to achieve

• Using PGD to Screen for Superficial Desired Traits Is Immoral if it
was done for unselfish reasons (solely to benefit someone else)
o e.g. Using PGD to screen for superficial desired traits in order to

give your child the best chance of success and happiness in life

Normative Jurisprudence
Freedom & The Proper Limits of the Law

Normative Jurisprudence: Superficial Desired Traits
The Proper Limits of the Law

The Harm Principle

The government may prohibit using PGD to screen embryos for
superficial desired traits only if doing so is necessary to prevent
harm to others

▪ e.g. A law that bans the practice of using PGD to screen embryos
for superficial desired traits out of the government’s desire to
prevent the slippery slope towards eugenics

Normative Jurisprudence: Superficial Desired Traits
The Proper Limits of the Law

The Principle of Legal Moralism

The government may prohibit using PGD to screen embryos for
superficial desired traits if society, as a whole deems, the practice
to be immoral

▪ e.g. A law that bans the practice of using PGD to screen embryos
for superficial desired traits because society, as a whole, believes
that the practice is immoral

Critical Jurisprudence

Screening for Superficial Desired Traits

Critical Jurisprudence: Superficial Desired Traits

Critical Legal Studies

Using PGD to screen embryos for superficial desired traits is so
expensive that only the wealthy will be able to afford it
▪ Due to the expensive nature of screening embryos for superficial

desired traits, legalizing the practice would
o Give the wealthy an unfair genetic advantage over the poor
o Exacerbate socioeconomic inequality by creating a genetic

underclass

Critical Jurisprudence: Superficial Desired Traits

Critical Race Theory

Using PGD to screen embryos for superficial desired traits is so
expensive that only the wealthy will be able to afford it.

Since Racial & Ethnic minorities are disproportionately poor in this
country, legalizing the use of PGD to screen embryos for superficial
desired traits will perpetuate racial inequality & further devalue
minorities

▪ Due to the expensive nature of using PGD to screen embryos for
superficial desired traits, legalizing the practice would exacerbate
racial inequality by giving Whites (who are disproportionately
wealthy) an unfair genetic advantage over racial and ethnic
minorities (who are disproportionately poor)

Applied Jurisprudence

Abortion – Parts 1 & 2

Introduction to Abortion: Definitions

Abortion is the intentional/deliberate termination of a
pregnancy (through drugs or surgery).

The Legality of Abortion

The Legality of Abortion

Roe v Wade (1973)

Facts:
▪ Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of a Texas law that

banned abortion except when necessary to save the life of the
pregnant woman

Decision:
▪ The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Texas abortion law as

unconstitutional

The Legality of Abortion

Doe v Bolton (1973)
(*The sister/companion case to Roe v Wade*)

Facts:
▪ Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of a Georgia law that

banned abortion except where: (a) the pregnancy resulted from
rape or incest; (b) the fetus was likely to be born with a serious,
permanent defect; or (c) continuing the pregnancy would
endanger the life – or seriously and permanently affect the health
– of the pregnant woman

Decision:
▪ The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Georgia abortion law as

unconstitutional

The Legality of Abortion

Roe v Wade & Doe v Bolton

Rationale: Set forth in the Roe opinion, but applied equally to Doe

▪ The U.S. Supreme Court held that the fundamental right to
privacy recognized in Griswold v Connecticut (1965) includes a
woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy (have an abortion).

• In Griswold v Connecticut (1965), the US Supreme Court held
that there is a fundamental right to privacy implicit in the
Constitution, which prevents the government from intruding
into certain areas of a person’s life, such as marriage and
family planning (i.e. the use of birth control).

The Legality of Abortion

Roe v Wade & Doe v Bolton (continued)

Rationale: Set forth in the Roe opinion (continued)

▪ When a law infringes on a fundamental right, the US Supreme
Court uses the Strict Scrutiny standard of judicial review to
determine the constitutionality of that law (to determine whether
it violates the US Constitution)

▪ Because the US Supreme Court held that abortion was a
fundamental right, it used the Strict Scrutiny standard of judicial
review to determine the constitutionality of the abortion laws at
issue in the cases

The Legality of Abortion

Roe v Wade & Doe v Bolton (continued)

Rationale: Set forth in the Roe opinion (continued)

▪ The U.S. Supreme Court divided pregnancy into thirds – trimesters
– and applied Strict Scrutiny to each.

• First Trimester (month 0 – 3)

• Second Trimester (month 4 – 6)

• Third Trimester (month 7 – 10)

▪ By doing this, the U.S. Supreme Court tied the state regulation of
abortion to the pregnant woman’s current trimester of pregnancy.

The Legality of Abortion

Roe v Wade & Doe v Bolton (continued)

Rationale: Set forth in the Roe opinion (continued)

▪ First Trimester (Months 0-3)
• During the first trimester, a state may not ban or regulate an

abortion in any way.

▪ Effect: Abortion is legal during the first trimester

The Legality of Abortion

Roe v Wade & Doe v Bolton (continued)

Rationale: Set forth in the Roe opinion (continued)

▪ Second Trimester (Months 4-6)
• During the second trimester, a state may not ban abortion.

• During the second trimester, a state may regulate abortion only
to require that abortions be performed by qualified
professionals in well-equipped facilities

▪ Effect: Abortion is legal during the second trimester

The Legality of Abortion

Roe v Wade & Doe v Bolton (continued)

Rationale: Set forth in the Roe opinion (continued)

▪ Third Trimester (Months 7-10)
• During the third trimester, a state may ban abortion unless it is

necessary to protect the health of the pregnant woman.

▪ Effect: Abortion is only legal during the third trimester if it’s
necessary to protect the health of the pregnant woman

▪ Summary
• Abortion is legal in the 1st and 2nd trimesters, and legal in the 3rd

trimester if necessary, to protect the health of the pregnant woman

The Legality of Abortion

Roe v Wade & Doe v Bolton

Rationale: Set forth in the Doe opinion, but applied equally to Roe

▪ Although 99% of the Court’s decision was set forth in the Roe
opinion, the Court’s explanation of when a 3rd trimester abortion
would be considered necessary to protect the health of the
pregnant woman was set forth (was hidden) in the Doe opinion:

• Whether a 3rd trimester abortion is necessary to protect the
health of the pregnant woman is a judgment that must be made
by a doctor in light of all factors relevant to her health and well-
being, including her physical, emotional, psychological and
familial health, as well as her age

The Legality of Abortion

Roe v Wade & Doe v Bolton (continued)

Conclusion:

▪ The Texas and Georgia abortion laws failed strict scrutiny
(because they banned abortion throughout the entire pregnancy
instead of distinguishing between early, mid and late-term
abortions) and, as a result, were struck down as unconstitutional.

The Legality of Abortion

Roe v Wade & Doe v Bolton (continued)

The Impact of the Roe and Doe Decisions

Roe and Doe overturned the abortion laws of 46 states and split the
United States into 2 factions:

▪ Supporters of the Roe & Doe decisions (people who support the
legalization of abortion) = Pro-Choice

▪ Opponents of the Roe & Doe decisions (people who oppose the
legalization of abortion/Want to abolish abortion) = Pro-Life

Watch the Documentary: “Lake of Fire”

Introduction to Abortion: US Abortion Law

Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992)
Facts
▪ Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of a Pennsylvania law that

regulated abortion by requiring:
1. Informed Consent *
2. A 24-hour Waiting Period *
3. Parental Consent (included a judicial waiver provision) *
4. Spousal Notification *
5. An Exception for Health/Medical Emergencies
6. Reporting of Information to the State

Decision
▪ The US Supreme Court upheld as constitutional all but 1 provision of

the Pennsylvania abortion law

Introduction to Abortion: US Abortion Law

Planned Parenthood v Casey (continued)

Rationale:

The U.S. Supreme Court Overturned Roe’s Trimester Framework
and Replaced it with a Framework Based on Fetal Viability

▪ Instead of dividing pregnancy into trimesters, the U.S. Supreme
Court divided pregnancy into 2 parts: (1) before fetal viability; and
(2) after fetal viability

▪ By doing this, the U.S. Supreme Court tied the state regulation of
abortion to fetal viability (instead of to the pregnant woman’s
current trimester of pregnancy)

Introduction to Abortion: US Abortion Law

Planned Parenthood v Casey (continued)

Rationale: (continued)

State Abortion Prohibitions: “Roe’s Central Holding”

▪ Before Fetal Viability
• Before Fetal Viability, the state may not ban abortion
▪ Effect: Abortion is legal before fetal viability

▪ After Fetal Viability
• After Fetal Viability, the state may ban abortion except when

it’s necessary to protect the health of the pregnant woman.
▪ Effect: Abortion is only legal after fetal viability if it’s

necessary to protect the health of the pregnant woman

Introduction to Abortion: US Abortion Law

Planned Parenthood v Casey (continued)

Rationale: (continued)

State Abortion Regulations:

▪ After Fetal Viability
• After fetal viability, a state may regulate abortion

▪ Before Fetal Viability
• Instead of using the Strict Scrutiny standard of judicial review, the

U.S. Supreme Court established a new standard of judicial review –
the Undue Burden Standard – to determine the constitutionality of
state regulations on abortions that occur before fetal viability

Introduction to Abortion: US Abortion Law

Planned Parenthood v Casey (continued)

Rationale: (continued)

State Abortion Regulations: (continued)

▪ Before Fetal Viability (continued)
• The Undue Burden Standard of Judicial Review
o Before fetal viability, states may regulate abortion so long as

such regulations don’t impose an undue burden on a woman’s
right to access or obtain an abortion

▪ A state regulation imposes an undue burden if it has the
purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of
a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability

Introduction to Abortion: US Abortion Law

Planned Parenthood v Casey (continued)

Rationale: (continued)

State Abortion Regulations: (continued)

▪ Before Fetal Viability (continued)

• By using the Undue Burden Standard (instead of strict scrutiny) to
determine the constitutionality of state regulations on abortions
that occur before fetal viability, the U.S. Supreme Court:

1. Made it significantly easier for the states to regulate abortion

2. Implicitly rejected Roe’s view that the right to abortion is a
fundamental right

Introduction to Abortion: US Abortion Law

Roe v Wade & Doe v Bolton
▪ Trimester Framework

▪ Strict Scrutiny Standard

▪ Abortion is a Fundamental Right

▪ 1st Trimester – Abortion can’t be
banned or regulated

▪ 2nd Trimester – Abortion can’t be
banned but it can be regulated, but
only to require that abortions be
performed by qualified health
professionals in well-equipped
facilities

▪ 3rd Trimester – Abortion can be
regulated and banned unless it is
necessary to protect the health of
the pregnant woman

Planned Parenthood v Casey

▪ Viability Framework

▪ Undue Burden Standard

▪ Abortion is not a Fundamental Right

▪ Before Fetal Viability -Abortion can’t
be banned, however, it can be
regulated so long as such regulations
do not place an undue burden on a
woman’s right to access or obtain an
abortion.

▪ After Fetal Viability – Abortion can be
regulated and banned unless it is
necessary to protect the health of the
pregnant woman

Introduction to Abortion: US Abortion Law

Gonzales v Carhart (2007)
Facts
▪ Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of a federal law that

banned the Partial Birth Abortion Procedure without providing
an exception for cases where the procedure would be necessary
to protect the health of the pregnant woman

Types of Surgical Abortion Procedures
▪ Suction Aspiration
▪ Dilation and Evacuation (D & E)
▪ Dilation and Extraction (D & X) (aka a Partial Birth Abortion)

Introduction to Abortion: US Abortion Law

Gonzales v Carhart (continued)

Types of Surgical Abortion Procedures (continued)

▪ Suction Aspiration
• Most common surgical abortion procedure

• Performed during the 1st three months of pregnancy (1st

trimester)

• Dr. removes fetus from the uterus by suctioning it through a
thin tube that is inserted into the uterus.

Introduction to Abortion: US Abortion Law

Gonzales v Carhart (continued)

Types of Surgical Abortion Procedures (continued)

▪ Dilation and Evacuation (D & E)
• Performed after the 1st 3 months of pregnancy (performed

during the 2nd & 3rd trimesters)

• Dr. dismembers the fetus inside the mother’s uterus before
removing the pieces from the mother’s body

Introduction to Abortion: US Abortion Law

Gonzales v Carhart (continued)

Types of Surgical Abortion Procedures (continued)

▪ Dilation and Extraction (D & X)
• Also known as the Partial Birth Abortion Procedure, which is

the abortion procedure at issue in Gonzales v Carhart

• Performed after the 1st 3 months of pregnancy (performed
during the 2nd & 3rd trimesters)

• Dr. extracts portions of the fetus from the uterus and
dismembers it outside of the mother’s body.

Introduction to Abortion: US Abortion Law

Gonzales v Carhart (continued)

Decision

▪ The US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a federal
law that banned the partial birth abortion procedure without
providing an exception for instances where the procedure was
necessary to safeguard a pregnant woman’s health

• This marked the first time the US Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality of an abortion prohibition that did not include
an exception to safeguard a pregnant woman’s health

Introduction to Abortion: US Abortion Law

Gonzales v Carhart (continued)

Rationale

▪ Government’s desire to reduce the number of abortions is a
legitimate interest justifying restrictions on abortion practices;

▪ Government’s desire to protect the reputation of the medical
profession is a legitimate interest justifying restrictions on abortion
practices;

▪ Government’s concern for a pregnant woman’s emotional health is a
legitimate interest justifying restrictions on abortion practices;

▪ Banning an abortion procedure without providing an exception to
safeguard the mother’s health does not impose an undue burden so
long as another reasonably safe abortion method is available

SPRING 2021 – LAW 301

LESSON 6: APPLIED JURISPRUDENCE: TORTURE & THE WAR ON TERROR – PARTS 1 & 2

INTRODUCTION

• Immediately after the terrorist attacks on the New York World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001,

the US government was concerned that further attacks were already underway. Acting under the impression of an

imminent threat and critical time pressure, Congress gave President George W Bush largely free rein to protect the

United States from further attack.

 Both the authorization by Congress and the action by the executive on that basis outlived the immediate shock after

September 11th and still form the basis of the War on Terror today.

• The legal basis for the War on Terror is the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which Congressed passed

on September 14, 2001 – just 3 days after the terrorist attacks of September 11th

 The AUMF authorized the president “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or

persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11th,

or harbored such organizations or persons.”

 The AUMF did not delineate any territorial specificity or geographical limits.

GATHERING ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE THROUGH INTERROGATION

• As is common in asymmetrical wars when states (countries) fight non-state groups, gathering actionable intelligence

through interrogation of captured enemies was of the utmost importance.

• During the War on Terror, two groups were tasked with gathering intelligence through the interrogation of suspected

terrorists: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and The U.S. Military

Intelligence Gathering by the CIA: The Rendition, Detention & Interrogation (RDI) Program

• President Bush made covert operations a central part of the War on Terror

• On September 17, 2001 – six days after the terrorist attacks of September 11th – President Bush signed a classified,

covert action Memorandum of Notification (MON), which gave the CIA far-reaching powers to seize and detain

suspected terrorists.

 In contrast to previous covert programs, the president did not authorize each operation individually.

▪ Instead, he delegated the approval of specific operations, including targeted killings, to the head of the CIA

Counterterrorism Center.

 Details were kept secret from the public.

▪ Vice President Cheney said in a television interview that, in order to succeed, the intelligence services would have to

work in the dark, and without much discussion of their methods.

▪ Only years later did the public find out exactly what the new powers include

• Under the authority granted to it by the MON, the CIA established the Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation (RDI)

program, which was designed to secretly capture, transport, detain and interrogate suspected terrorists beyond the reach

of the law.

 The RDI Program was actually comprised of two highly classified sub-programs:

▪ 1) The Extraordinary Rendition Program; and

▪ 2) The Secret Detention Program.

• The Extraordinary Rendition Program

 The Extraordinary Rendition Program was an intelligence-gathering program, whereby foreign nationals suspected of

terrorism were abducted and secretly transferred to the custody of foreign governments for purposes of detention and

interrogation

▪ The CIA, backed by the Bush Administration, advanced the position that foreign nationals detained outside U.S.

sovereign territory were not protected by federal or international laws.

▪ Accordingly, the Extraordinary Rendition Program allowed the CIA to abduct and disappear suspected terrorists to

countries where safeguards against torture and abusive treatment are looser than in the U.S., so that foreign

intelligence agents could detain them incommunicado/without legal process and subject them to brutal interrogation

methods, which would be impermissible under federal and international law

 In other words, through the Extraordinary Rendition Program, the CIA circumvented federal and international laws

prohibiting torture by sending terrorist suspects to countries long condemned for using torture as a tool of

interrogation, so that they could torture them for us and share any resulting intelligence.

2

▪ According to one U.S. official involved in rendering individuals to foreign governments: “We don’t kick the

[expletive] out of them. We send them to other countries so they can kick the [expletive] out of them.”

 The CIA specifically selected some of the world’s nastiest regimes as destinations for its detainees.

▪ Foreign nationals suspected of terrorism have been transported to detention and interrogation facilities in Jordan,

Iraq, Egypt, Morocco, and elsewhere.

▪ In the words of former CIA agent Robert Baer: “If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If

you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear — never to see them again —

you send them to Egypt.”

• The Secret Detention Program

 The Extraordinary Rendition Program set the stage for a second pathway to intelligence-gathering: The CIA’s in-house

detention and interrogation program, known as the Secret Detention Program.

 The Secret Detention Program was an intelligence-gathering program, whereby foreign nationals suspected of

terrorism were abducted and secretly transferred to CIA-run secret prisons outside of the United States (known as

“black sites”) for purposes of detention and interrogation

▪ The CIA, backed by the Bush Administration, advanced the position that foreign nationals detained outside U.S.

sovereign territory were not protected by federal or international laws.

▪ Accordingly, the Secret Detention Program allowed the CIA to abduct and disappear suspected terrorists to black

sites so that the CIA could detain them incommunicado/without legal process and subject them to brutal interrogation

methods, which would be impermissible under federal and international law

 In other words, through the Secret Detention Program, the CIA circumvented federal and international laws by

disappearing suspected terrorists to CIA-run secret prisons outside of the United States so that they [the CIA] could

torture them to obtain intelligence.

 The Secret Detention Program was reserved for high value detainees” (HVDs) – people assumed to be terrorist leaders

or planners of the September 11th terror attacks, or to have knowledge about terrorist operations and plots.

▪ Thus, it was HVDs who were abducted and disappeared to black sites for purposes of detention and interrogation

 CIA Interrogation Techniques (Used in Conjunction with The Secret Detention Program)

▪ The CIA had relatively little experience interrogating suspected terrorists so they hired two psychologists/CIA

consultants to “reverse engineer” techniques from the military’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE)

Program, which was designed to be defensive in nature and was used to train pilots and other soldiers on how to

resist harsh interrogation techniques and torture should they to fall into enemy hands.

• Enemy = “A totalitarian evil nation with complete disregard for human rights & the Geneva Convention.”

▪ Under CIA supervision, the psychologists adapted SERE into an offensive program, which was designed to place

detainees under such psychologically devastating stress that they become helpless and, thus, more likely cooperate

with interrogators.

▪ The result was 12 “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” (EITs)

• 12 “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” (EITs)

 1) Attention Grasp – Grasping the detainee with both hands, with one hand on each side of the collar opening, in a

controlled and quick motion and, in the same motion, drawing the detainee towards the interrogator

 2) Walling – Pulling the detainee forward and then quickly and firmly pushing him into a flexible false wall so

that his shoulder blades hit the wall.

 3) Facial Hold – Placing an open palm on either side of the detainee’s face (to hold the detainee’s head immobile)

 4) Facial/Insult Slap – Slapping the detainee with fingers slightly spread apart in the face, between the tip of his

chin and the bottom of his earlobe.

 5) Cramped Confinement – Placing the detainee in a confined space, typically a small or large box, which is

usually dark. Confinement in the smaller space lasts no more than two hours and in the larger space it can last

up to 18 hours.

 6) Wall Standing – Making the detainee stand about 4 to 5 feet from a wall with his feet spread approximately to

his shoulder width, his arms are stretched out in front of him and his fingers rest on the wall to support all of his

body weight. The detainee is not allowed to reposition his hands or feet.

 7) Stress Position – Making the detainee sit on the floor with his legs extended straight out in front of him with his

arms raised above his head or making the detainee kneel on the floor while leaning back at a 45-degree angle.

 8) Sleep Deprivation

 9) Use of Insects – Placing a harmless insect in the confinement box with the detainee.

3

 10) Use of Diapers – Making the detainee wear and use (urinate and defecate in) diapers

 11) Waterboarding – Binding the detainee to a bench with his feet elevated above his head, immobilizing his head,

and placing a cloth over his mouth and nose while pouring water onto the cloth in a controlled manner. Airflow

is restricted for 20 to 40 seconds, and the technique produces the sensation of drowning and suffocation.

 12) Mock Burial

• On July 24, 2002, “the attorney general verbally approved the use of 10 of the 12 EITs, which did not include

waterboarding nor mock burial.

 Nonetheless, on July 26, 2002, the attorney general verbally approved the use of waterboarding

• On August 2, 2002, the Director of Central Intelligence was given policy approval to employ the EITs.

▪ While they were not considered “enhanced interrogation techniques,” several other techniques were also proposed –

and ultimately approved – for use against detainees, including:

• Solitary confinement,

• Water dousing,

• Dietary manipulation,

• Sensory deprivation,

• Environmental manipulation, and

• Forced nudity.

• Comparing & Contrasting the CIA’s Extraordinary Rendition and Secret Detention Programs

 Although the Extraordinary Rendition Program placed suspected terrorists in the custody of a foreign government and

the Secret Detention Program placed suspected terrorist in CIA custody, both CIA programs had similar modalities and

entailed the same kinds of human rights violations:

▪ The abduction and disappearance of suspected terrorists;

▪ Their extra-legal transfer on secret flights to undisclosed locations around the world; and

▪ Their subsequent incommunicado detention, interrogation, torture, and abuse.

 Moreover, both the Extraordinary Rendition Program and the Secret Detention Program:

▪ Were conducted outside the United States; and

▪ Were designed to place interrogations beyond the reach of the law.

 Finally, the goal of both the Extraordinary Rendition Program and the Secret Detention Program was to gather

intelligence through interrogation – not to bring suspects to trial.

▪ Accordingly, people caught in the system of extraordinary rendition and secret detention were not charged with a

crime, were not allowed access to lawyers, were detained indefinitely, and were not given access to courts where they

could challenge the legitimacy of their detention

Intelligence Gathering by The U.S. Military in Its Own Detention Facilities

• The U.S. Military interrogated detainees held in its detention facilities (U.S. military prisons) at Bagram Air Base in

Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib in Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay in Cuba

• On November 13, 2001, George W. Bush, acting as President and Commander-in-Chief, signed a military order

entitled “Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism,” in which he

declared that foreign nationals suspected of terrorism:

 1) Could be imprisoned by the United States (the US military); and

• They could they be detained indefinitely without being charged

• They had no right to be informed of the evidence against them,

 2) If brought to trial, would be tried, and sentenced by a new kind of military commission.

• No member of the commission need be a lawyer.

• The ordinary rules of military law would not apply.

• Nor would the laws of war.

• Nor, in any conventional sense, would the laws of the United States.

 In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v Rumsfeld that the Bush Administration’s use of military

commissions to try and sentence foreign nationals suspected of terrorism (as was mandated by a November

13, 2001 military order) violated the U.S. Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions, and were

not specifically authorized by any act of Congress

• Accordingly, beginning in the fall of 2001, hundreds of men were taken into custody and interrogated, all around the

world, but especially in Afghanistan, where the U.S. military dropped flyers offering large bounties in exchange for

4

information about men with ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban (“This is enough money to take care of your family, your

village, your tribe for the rest of your life,” one flyer read)

 Detainees later reported that they were sold for between $5,000 and $25,000. (The average annual income in

Afghanistan at the time was less than $300.)

• The Guantanamo Bay (GITMO) Detention Camp

 There remained the question of where to imprison these men. Sending them to Leavenworth and reopening Alcatraz

were both considered but were rejected, because holding suspected terrorists on American soil might allow them to

appeal to American courts and U.S. law.

 Instead, the Bush Administration established the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp – a U.S. military prison located on

the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba– to hold the suspected terrorists.

▪ The Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (GITMO) – which occupies 45 square miles on the southeastern end of Cuba – was

selected because it isn’t part of Cuba, and it isn’t part of the United States. It’s one of the world’s last known no

man’s lands. Indeed, according to a member of the Bush Administration, Guantanamo was the “legal equivalent of

outer space.”

 The selection of Guantánamo as the place to imprison men captured in the War on Terror was announced on December

27, 2001

 On January 11, 2002, the first prisoners arrived at Guantánamo shackled, hooded, and blindfolded

 Intelligence Gathering at The Guantanamo Bay (GITMO) Detention Camp

▪ Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was responsible for authorizing the use of certain interrogation techniques by

military interrogators.

▪ Interrogators were under enormous pressure from the Pentagon for actionable intelligence, including information that

would lead to the capture of bin Laden and other top al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders.

▪ To elicit this information, prisoners were subjected to interrogation techniques that were designed to produce

debility, disorientation, and dread.

• Protracted hooding, sleep deprivation, forced nakedness and recurrent cavity searches, position abuse such as

chaining and tying them to chairs or hooks on the floor or wall, and manipulation of lighting, sound, temperature,

food, and medicine, use of dogs, forcible shaving, and death threats became standard operating procedure to

persuade captives that resistance was futile.

CONTROVERSY SURROUNDING THESE INTELLIGENCE GATHERING METHODS

• In the wake of the terror attacks of September 11th, the Bush Administration:

 1) Detained foreign nationals suspected of terrorism indefinitely, with no meaningful opportunity to challenge the

grounds for their detention

 2) Created military commissions to prosecute and sentence foreign nationals suspected of terrorism, which were

subject to special laws and failed to provide suspected terrorists due process under the law; and

 3) Subjected foreign nationals suspected of terrorism to highly coercive interrogations that violate U.S. and

international prohibitions against torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment and punishment

HOW WAS THE U.S. ABLE TO USE THESE INTELLIGENCE GATHERING METHODS WITHOUT

VIOLATING U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL LAWS?

• The Bush Administration Adopted Policies Designed to Avoid Both:

 1) U.S. and international anti-torture laws; and

 2) Meaningful judicial review of detention decisions

February 7, 2002 Memo

• In a memo dated February 7, 2002, President Bush designated foreign nationals suspected of having connections to

terrorist groups (such as al Qaeda and the Taliban) as unlawful enemy combatants.

 The administration devised the label “unlawful enemy combatants” to distinguish foreign nationals suspected of

terrorism from lawful combatants.

▪ This distinction is important since, under the terms of the Geneva Conventions:

• When enemy forces capture and detain a lawful combatant – who is a uniformed member of the armed forces

of a party to an armed conflict who carries arms openly and operates under a responsible chain-of-command –

he is deemed a prisoner of war (POW) and, thus, is eligible to receive the protections afforded to POWs under

the Geneva Conventions.

5

• By contrast, when enemy forces capture and detain an unlawful combatant, he does not enjoy legal status as a

POW and, thus, is ineligible to receive the protections afforded to POWs under the terms of the Geneva

Conventions.

 The Bush Administration determined that because members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban do not wear identifying

insignia, carry arms openly, or obey the law of war, every member of these terrorist groups is an unlawful combatant

regardless of the member’s conduct at any given time.

• By classifying foreign nationals suspected of having connections to terrorist groups as “unlawful enemy

combatants” rather than as POWs, the Bush Administration stripped them of:

 1) Protection Against Torture & Inhumane Treatment Under the Geneva Conventions

• Common Article Three of the Geneva Convention bars torture, cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, as

well as outrages against the human dignity of POWs.

 We signed it to keep our soldiers safe (we’ll adhere to it because we want others to adhere to it)

• Common Article Four of the Geneva Convention protects POWs from rendition to the extent that they would

be subjected to “willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment.”

 2) The Right to Habeas Corpus

• Habeas corpus is the fundamental constitutional right to challenge the lawfulness of your detention in US

federal courts

• A petition for a writ of habeas corpus is a civil action against the jailer – commanding warden to produce the

prisoner at a designated time and place – for the sole purpose of determining whether his detention is in

violation of a constitutional right. (habeas corpus means “bring forth the body”)

• The Bush Administration deprived foreign nationals suspected of terrorism of their right to habeas corpus so

that it could:

 a) Hold them indefinitely without being charged or given a fair trial, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the

5
th
Amendment; and

 In June 2004, the New York Times reported that of the nearly 600 detainees at GITMO not more than two

dozen were closely linked to Al Qaeda and that only limited information could have been received from

questionings.

 Most of the detainees were innocent shepherds who were turned in by “bounty hunters” (in response to

military fliers) in exchange for large sums of money

 b) Subject them to highly coercive and degrading (at the very least) interrogations in violation of the 8
th

Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment

• However, in 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Rasul v. Bush that foreign nations detained at the Guantanamo

Bay Detention Center (GITMO) had the right to petition federal courts for writs of habeas corpus to review the

legality of their detention

August 1, 2002 Memo

• The military order, the location of the prisons, and the memos all evaded a variety of legal instruments designed to

protect prisoners from torture. But another obstacle remained: the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,

Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, a treaty that the United States had signed in 1988 and ratified in 1994.

 The UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment defined

torture as, “any act by which severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such

purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession…”

 A memo dated August 1, 2002, which was signed by the U.S. Justice Department’s Jay S. Bybee and sent to White

House counsel Alberto Gonzales, attempted to make a distinction between acts that are “cruel, inhuman, or degrading”

and acts that constitute torture.

 This memo, which is commonly known as the “Torture Memo” asserted that cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment

would not constitute physical torture unless “it was equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical

injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death,” and that cruel, inhuman, or degrading

treatment would not constitute mental torture unless it caused psychological harm that lasted “months or even years.”

 By redefining torture in this manner, the Torture Memo authorized what has come to be called “torture lite” (i.e.

stripping, exposure to extreme temperatures & light, false threats to family members, & the use of dogs.)

6

THE JURISPRUDENCE OF TORTURE/ENHANCED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES

NORMATIVE JURISPRUDENCE

A) The Relationship Between Law & Morality

 Deontological Ethical Theories

▪ Natural Law

• According to Natural Law, enhanced interrogation techniques are always immoral

▪ Kant’s Ethical Theory

• According to Kantian Ethics, enhanced interrogation techniques are always immoral

• Principle of Universal Law

 Since, we have a duty to treat everyone fairly/equally (hold everyone to the same standard), subjecting a foreign national

suspected of terrorism to enhanced interrogation techniques when we would not want someone to subject us (or our

soldiers or fellow U.S. citizens) to them, is immoral

▪ (“We can do it, but I wouldn’t want others to be able to do it”)

• Principle of Dignity

 Since, all human life has [equal] value, we have a duty to treat all people with dignity (as an end unto

themselves/not merely as a means to an end)

 Enhanced interrogation techniques are immoral because it treats the detainee as a means to an end (we are

subjecting him to enhanced interrogation techniques to obtain actionable intelligence – rather than considering the

impact that it will have on him)

 Teleological Ethical Theories

▪ Utilitarianism

• Whether enhanced interrogation techniques are moral depends on whether they produce the greatest good for the

greatest number of people.

• We must make this determination (determine whether enhanced interrogation techniques are moral/immoral) on a

case-by-case basis by tallying the positive and negative consequences of (the good and bad that will result from) of

each person’s decision to use them to gain intelligence.

• When determining the morality of enhanced interrogation techniques, which ethical theory would weigh the

potentially positive consequences that enhanced interrogation techniques might have for some people against the

potentially negative consequences that they might have for others?

• Potentially Positive Consequences of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

 It can produce actionable intelligence

• Potentially Negative Consequences of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

 Any intelligence gathered under these conditions lacks reliability/credibility.

▪ People will say/admit to anything (even things they know to be false) to make torture stop.
▪ These conditions often lead to insanity- people have no idea what they’re admitting to.

 Makes other countries hate us more and want to retaliate.

 Puts our troops at risk

 Puts our citizens at risk (i.e. beheadings)

 Breeds terrorists (helped recruit people to join terrorist groups)

▪ Ethical Altruism

• Whether enhanced interrogation techniques are moral depends on why a person used them:

 If a person used enhanced interrogation techniques for altruistic/unselfish reasons/for someone else’s benefit then

they’re moral (i.e. to save lives)

 If a person used torture/enhanced interrogation techniques for selfish reasons/for her own benefit, then they’re

immoral (i.e., because he obtained pleasure from torturing someone)

▪ Ethical Egoism

• Whether enhanced interrogation techniques are moral depends on why a person used them:

 If a person used torture/enhanced interrogation techniques for selfish reasons/for her own benefit, then they’re

moral (i.e., because he obtained pleasure from torturing someone)

 If a person used torture/enhanced interrogation techniques for altruistic/unselfish reasons/for someone else’s

benefit then they’re immoral (i.e. to save lives)

7

B) Freedom & The Proper Limits of the Law

• Principles Justifying Governmental Restrictions on The Use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

 The Harm Principle

▪ The government may prohibit enhanced interrogation techniques only if necessary to prevent the interrogator from

causing [physical or psychological] harm to others

 The Principle of Legal Paternalism

▪ The government may prohibit enhanced interrogation techniques if necessary to prevent the interrogator from causing

physical or psychological harm to themselves

 The Principle of Legal Moralism

▪ The government may prohibit enhanced interrogation techniques if society – as a whole – deems them to be immoral

Applied Jurisprudence

Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis
Part 3

Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis

3. Screening for Genetic Compatibility
with a Sibling in Need of a Transplant

Introduction

Screening for Genetic Compatibility
with a Sibling in Need of a Transplant

Introduction: Genetic Compatibility

PGD can be used to screen embryos for genetic compatibility with
an existing child (a sibling) in need of a transplant prior to uterine
transfer
▪ Conditions such as leukemia can be fatal if untreated, and for

many sufferers the only cure is a bone marrow transplant from a
genetically compatible donor (a donor who is a genetic/tissue
match)

▪ Parents have only a 1 in 200 chance of being a genetically
compatible donor for their children

▪ If no match exists, there is now reproductive science/technology
that can be used to create a genetically compatible sibling to
donate life-saving tissue to the existing child in need of a
transplant

Introduction: Genetic Compatibility

Procedure for Using PGD to Screen Embryos for Genetic
Compatibility with an Existing Child in Need of a Transplant

Embryos created through IVF are tested for both:
a) The genetic disease possessed by the existing child in need of

the transplant; and
b) genetic/hysto compatibility with the existing child in need of

the transplant through human leucocyte antigen (HLA)
typing/matching

Only those embryos that are genetically compatible with the
existing child and free of the original genetic disease are implanted
into the uterus

Introduction: Genetic Compatibility

▪ People who are in favor of screening embryos for genetic
compatibility with a sibling in need of a transplant (Proponents)
call the resulting children “Savior Siblings“

▪ People who oppose screening embryos for genetic compatibility
with a sibling in need of a transplant (Opponents) call the
resulting children “Spare Parts Babies

Watch Movie: “My Sister’s Keeper”

Normative Jurisprudence

Screening for Genetic Compatibility
with a Sibling in Need of a Transplant

Normative Jurisprudence
The Relationship Between Law & Morality

Normative Jurisprudence: Genetic Compatibility
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Deontological Ethical Theories

Natural Law
▪ According to Natural Law, using PGD to screen embryos for

genetic compatibility with an existing child (a sibling) in need of
a transplant is Always Immoral
• Rationale:

o The right to life is the most supreme natural right.
o We have a moral obligation to protect life – especially innocent

& defenseless life (embryos).
o Screening embryos for genetic compatibility with am existing

child is immoral because it violates the discarding embryos’
fundamental and inalienable right to life.

Normative Jurisprudence: Genetic Compatibility
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Deontological Ethical Theories (continued)

Kantian Ethics
▪ According to Kantian Ethics, using PGD to screen for genetic

compatibility with an existing child (a sibling) in need of a
transplant is Always Immoral
• All human life has intrinsic and equal value regardless of whether it is

born or unborn and regardless of whether it is genetically compatible
with an existing child ( a sibling) in need of a transplant
o Being genetically incompatible with an existing child in need of a

transplant doesn’t rob an embryo’s life of value or justify ending
its life

Normative Jurisprudence: Superficial Desired Traits
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Deontological Ethical Theories (continued)

Kantian Ethics (continued)
• Since all human life has value, we have a duty to treat both embryos and

people with dignity (as an end unto themselves, rather than as a means
to an end)
o Using PGD to screen embryos for genetic compatibility with an existing

child is immoral because it treats genetically incompatible embryos as
a means to an end (they are created and then destroyed so that
family can achieve happiness)

o Using PGD to screen embryos for genetic compatibility with an existing
child is also immoral because it treats the resulting child (the genetically
compatible “Savior Sibling”) as a means to an end (they are created
and used to heal their sick sibling rather than to be loved
unconditionally)

Normative Jurisprudence: Genetic Compatibility
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories

Utilitarianism

▪ According to Utilitarianism, using PGD to screen embryos for
genetic compatibility with an existing child (a sibling) in need of a
transplant can be Moral or Immoral

• Whether using PGD to screen embryos for genetic compatibility
with an existing child is moral depends on whether it produces the
greatest good for the greatest number of people.

• We must make this determination on a case-by-case basis by tallying the
positive & negative consequences of (the good & bad that will result from)
each couple’s decision to use PGD to screen embryos for genetic
compatibility with an existing child in need of a transplant

Normative Jurisprudence: Genetic Compatibility
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories (continued)

Utilitarianism (continued)
• When determining the morality of using PGD to screen embryos for

genetic compatibility with an existing child in need of a transplant,
we must weigh the potentially positive consequences that it might have for
some people against the potentially negative consequences that it might
have for others

▪ Rationale for the View that Using PGD to Screen Embryos for
Genetic Compatibility with an Existing Child is Moral
• The Positive Consequences of Using PGD to Screen Embryos for

Genetic Compatibility with An Existing Child Outweigh Its
Negative Consequences

Normative Jurisprudence: Genetic Compatibility
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories (continued)

Utilitarianism (continued)
▪ Rationale for the View that Using PGD to Screen Embryos for Genetic

Compatibility with an Existing Child is Moral (continued)
o Potentially Positive Consequences of Using PGD to Screen for

Genetic Compatibility with an Existing Child
▪ It could save families from unnecessary suffering
▪ It allows parents to improve the health & wellbeing of their

children
▪ Parents Often Have Mixed/Ulterior Motives For Having Children a

such Ulterior Motives Are Not Predictive of Parenting Ability
▪ Parents Willing to Have A Child to Save An Existing Child Are

Committed to the Well-Being of their Children

Normative Jurisprudence: Genetic Compatibility
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories (continued)

Utilitarianism (continued)
▪ Rationale for the View that Using PGD to Screen Embryos for Genetic

Compatibility with an Existing Child is Moral (continued)
o Potentially Positive Consequences of Using PGD to Screen for

Genetic Compatibility with an Existing Child (continued)
▪ It could save families from unnecessary suffering
▪ It allows parents to improve the health & wellbeing of their children
▪ The resulting child could get pleasure from knowing they had saved

a life
▪ It could free up organs/tissues on public donor registries/lists for

other people in need of transplants
▪ It could save society money

Normative Jurisprudence: Genetic Compatibility
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories (continued)

Utilitarianism (continued)
▪ Rationale for the View that Using PGD to Screen Embryos for Genetic

Compatibility with an Existing Child is Immoral
• The Negative Consequences of Using PGD to Screen Embryos for Genetic

Compatibility with An Existing Child Outweigh Its Positive Consequences
o Potentially Negative Consequences of Using PGD to Screen for

Genetic Compatibility with an Existing Child
▪ It violates the discarded embryos’ right to life
▪ It devalues the sanctity human life
▪ It could violate the resulting child’s right to autonomy/bodily

integrity

Normative Jurisprudence: Genetic Compatibility
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories (continued)

Utilitarianism (continued)
▪ Rationale for the View that Using PGD to Screen Embryos for Genetic

Compatibility with an Existing Child is Immoral (continued)
o Potentially Negative Consequences of Using PGD to Screen for

Genetic Compatibility with an Existing Child (continued)
▪ The resulting child could be treated like a commodity (a bank of parts)
▪ The resulting child could have a poor quality of life
▪ The resulting child could suffer adverse psychological

consequences
▪ It could lead to reduction in funds for public organ/tissue donation

programs and donor registries

Normative Jurisprudence: Genetic Compatibility
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories (continued)

Ethical Altruism
▪ According to Ethical Altruism, Using PGD to Screen for Genetic

Compatibility with an Existing Child can be Moral or Immoral
• Using PGD to Screen for Genetic Compatibility Is Moral if it was

done for unselfish reasons (solely to benefit someone else)
o e.g. Using PGD to screen embryos for genetic compatibility with

your child who needs a transplant in order to give your child
every opportunity to live a full and healthy life

• Using PGD to Screen for Genetic Compatibility Is Immoral if it was
done for selfish reasons (solely to benefit yourself)
o e.g. Using PGD to screen embryos for genetic compatibility with

your child who needs a transplant just because you can afford to
do so and you think it’s cool.

Normative Jurisprudence: Genetic Compatibility
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories (continued)

Ethical Egoism
▪ According to Ethical Egoism, Using PGD to Screen for Genetic

Compatibility with an Existing Child can be Moral or Immoral
• Using PGD to Screen for Genetic Compatibility Is Moral if it was

done for selfish reasons (solely to benefit yourself)
o e.g. Using PGD to screen embryos for genetic compatibility with

your child who needs a transplant just because you can afford to
do so and you think it’s cool.

• Using PGD to Screen for Genetic Compatibility Is Immoral if it was
done for unselfish reasons (solely to benefit someone else)
o e.g. Using PGD to screen embryos for genetic compatibility with

your child who needs a transplant in order to give your child
every opportunity to live a full and healthy life

Normative Jurisprudence
Freedom & The Proper Limits of the Law

Normative Jurisprudence: Genetic Compatibility
The Proper Limits of the Law

The Harm Principle

The government may prohibit using PGD to screen embryos for
genetic compatibility with an existing child (a sibling) in need of a
transplant only if doing so is necessary to prevent harm to others

• e.g. A law that bans the practice of screening embryos for genetic
compatibility with an existing child in need of a transplant out of the
government’s desire to prevent the resulting child from being
treated like a bank of parts rather than like a human being

• e.g. A law that bans the practice of screening embryos for genetic
compatibility with an existing child in need of a transplant out of the
government’s desire to prevent the resulting child from being forced
to undergo unwanted elective medical procedures

Normative Jurisprudence: Genetic Compatibility
The Proper Limits of the Law

The Principle of Legal Moralism

The government may prohibit using PGD to screen embryos for
genetic compatibility with an existing child (a sibling) in need of a
transplant if society, as a whole, deems the practice to be immoral

▪ e.g. A law that bans the practice of screening embryos for genetic
compatibility with an existing child in need of a transplant
because society, as a whole, believes that the practice is immoral

Critical Jurisprudence

Screening for Genetic Compatibility
with a Sibling in Need of a Transplant

Critical Jurisprudence: Genetic Compatibility
Critical Legal Studies

Using PGD to screen embryos for genetic compatibility with an
existing child in need of a transplant is so expensive that only the
wealthy will be able to afford it
▪ Due to the expensive nature of screening embryos for genetic

compatibility with an existing child, legalizing the practice would
o Give the wealthy an unfair genetic advantage over the poor
o Exacerbate socioeconomic inequality by creating a genetic

underclass

▪ Legalizing the practice of screening embryos for genetic
compatibility with an existing child in need of a transplant will lead
to a reduction in funds for public organs/tissue donation programs
and registries, which will negatively affect the poor who, due to the
expensive nature of the screening procedure, rely on these public
programs/registries to obtain transplants

Critical Jurisprudence: Genetic Compatibility
Critical Race Theory

Using PGD to screen embryos for genetic compatibility with an existing
child in need of a transplant is so expensive that only the wealthy will
be able to afford it. Since Racial & Ethnic minorities are
disproportionately poor in this country, legalizing PGD will perpetuate
racial inequality & further devalue minorities

▪ Due to the expensive nature of screening embryos for genetic
compatibility, legalizing the practice would exacerbate racial
inequality by giving Whites (who are disproportionately wealthy) an
unfair genetic advantage over racial and ethnic minorities (who are
disproportionately poor)

▪ Legalizing the practice of screening embryos for genetic
compatibility will lead to a reduction in funds for public organ/tissue
donation programs and registries, which will negatively affect racial
and ethnic minorities who are disproportionately poor and thus,
must rely on public organ donor lists to obtain transplants

Applied Jurisprudence

Abortion – Part 3

The Abortion Debate

The Abortion Debate

Two Main Issues in the Abortion Debate
▪ 1) The Rights Of The Fetus

▪ 2) The Rights Of The Pregnant Woman

The Abortion Debate

The Rights of the Fetus

▪ Much of the abortion debate centers around the status of the
fetus – namely, whether/at what point it is a person

• If the fetus is a person, then it has the rights that belong to
persons, including the right to life.

▪ If the fetus has the right to life, then it is wrong to kill/abort it

The Abortion Debate

The Rights of the Fetus (continued)

The Conservative View

▪ The Conservative View is that the fetus becomes a person at
conception

• Conception occurs when a sperm fertilizes an egg, forming a
single cell known as a zygote

The Liberal View

▪ The Liberal View is that the fetus becomes a person at birth

The Abortion Debate

The Rights of the Fetus (continued)

The Moderate View
▪ The Moderate View is that the fetus becomes a person at some

point between conception and birth

▪ Stages of Fetal Development Between Conception and Birth
• Implantation
• Formation
• Heartbeat
• Quickening
• Consciousness
• Viability

The Abortion Debate

The Rights of the Fetus (continued)

The Moderate View (continued)

▪ Stages of Fetal Development Between Conception & Birth (continued)

• Implantation

o Implantation occurs when a zygote attaches to the wall of the uterus

▪ Implantation is what the Morning After Pill ( “Plan B”) prevents

• People who believe that the Morning After Pill is
immoral/impermissible believe that the fetus becomes a person
at conception

The Abortion Debate
The Rights of the Fetus (continued)

The Moderate View (continued)

▪ Stages of Fetal Development Between Conception & Birth (continued)
• Formation

o Formation occurs when the major components of all of the fetus’
body structures and organs have been formed

• Heartbeat
o When the fetus’ heart starts to beat

• Quickening
o When a pregnant woman first feels the fetus move inside of her
▪ According to a now abandoned English common law theory,

quickening was when the fetus obtained a soul

The Abortion Debate

The Rights of the Fetus (continued)

The Moderate View (continued)

▪ Stages of Fetal Development Between Conception & Birth (continued)

• Consciousness
o Consciousness occurs when the fetus is able to feel pain

• Viability
o Viability occurs when the fetus is capable of meaningful life outside

of the uterus

▪ By tying the state regulation of abortion to fetal viability (in
Casey), the U.S. Supreme Court inferred that a fetus has the right
to life at viability

The Abortion Debate

The Rights of the Pregnant Woman

A pregnant woman is not just a container for a fetus – she’s a person
with rights of her own, which must be considered

▪ Rights of The Pregnant Woman At Issue In The Abortion Debate
1. The Right to Autonomy & Bodily Integrity

o The right to control/choose what happens to your body

2. The Right to Self-Determination
o The right to decide your own destiny (free will)

3. The Right to Health

The Abortion Debate

The Rights of the Pregnant Woman (continued)

The Conservative View

▪ The Conservative View is that a pregnant woman’s rights to
autonomy & bodily integrity, self-determination and health (even
her right to life) NEVER outweigh a fetus’ right to life

• As a result, the Conservative View is that abortion is never
permissible/is always impermissible

o In other words, the Conservative View is that abortion should
never be legal; It should be prohibited at any time during
pregnancy.

The Abortion Debate

The Rights of the Pregnant Woman (continued)

The Liberal View

▪ The Liberal View is that a pregnant woman’s rights to autonomy
& bodily integrity, self-determination and health ALWAYS
outweigh a fetus’ right to life

• As a result, the Liberal View is that abortion is always
permissible/is never impermissible

o In other words, the Liberal View is that abortion should never
be prohibited; It should be legal at any time during pregnancy.

The Abortion Debate

The Rights of the Pregnant Woman (continued)

The Moderate View

▪ The Moderate View is that a pregnant woman’s rights to
autonomy & bodily integrity, self-determination and health MAY
outweigh a fetus’ right to life

• As a result, the Moderate View is that the permissibility and
legality of abortion depends on secondary considerations

The Abortion Debate

The Rights of the Pregnant Woman (continued)

The Moderate View (continued)

▪ Secondary Considerations At Issue In the Abortion Debate
• Whether there is a serious medical issue

• Whether the pregnancy was unintentional
o Approximately 50% of pregnancies are unintended
o Approximately 50% of unintended pregnancies result in abortion

• Whether there is a social issue

The Abortion Debate
The Rights of the Pregnant Woman (continued)

The Moderate View (continued)
▪ Secondary Considerations At Issue In the Abortion Debate
• Whether There Is A Serious Medical Issue

• The Mother’s Life/Health Is At Risk
 The Mother will die – or her held with be seriously compromised – if she

carries pregnancy to term

• The Fetus’ Life/Health Is At Risk
 The Fetus Is So Sick That It Will Die Later In The Pregnancy (stillborn)
 The Fetus Is So Sick That It Will Die Shortly After Birth
 The Fetus Is So Sick That It Will Die Within First Year of Life
 There Are Too Many Fetuses In The Womb For Them All To Survive At

All/Without Defects (Selective Reduction)
 The child will suffer from a serious physical or mental defect that will

seriously damage its quality of life

The Abortion Debate
The Rights of the Pregnant Woman (continued)

The Moderate View (continued)
▪ Secondary Considerations At Issue In the Abortion Debate
• Whether The Pregnancy Was Unintentional

o Approximately 50% of pregnancies are unintended
o Approximately 50% of unintended pregnancies result in abortion

▪ Cases Where Pregnancy Is Entirely Unintentional
o Pregnancy Is Caused by Rape or Incest
o Pregnancy caused by a badly done vasectomy or a failure of

contraception where the potential parents are not to blame

▪ Cases Where Pregnancy Is Unintentional But Where A Risk Was
Taken (Abortion As Contraception)
o Pregnancy caused by failure to use – or careless use of – contraception

• Responsibility for Actions – Woman had sex out of her own free will) &
she should take responsibility for the consequences of her actions

The Abortion Debate
The Rights of the Pregnant Woman (continued)

The Moderate View (continued)
▪ Secondary Considerations At Issue In the Abortion Debate
• Whether There Was A Social Issue

▪ The pregnant woman is financially unstable/can’t afford to care for/raise a/another child
(i.e., impoverished, unemployed)

▪ The pregnant woman is too young to raise a child
▪ The pregnant woman is in an unstable/poor/bad or abusive relationship
▪ The pregnant woman is unmarried
▪ Having a child would prevent the pregnant woman from achieving a life objective (i.e.

school)
▪ Having a child would interfere with the pregnant woman’s job/career
▪ The pregnant woman is unable to emotionally cope with caring for a/another child
▪ Having a/another child would lower the family’s standard of living/hurt their lifestyle
▪ The pregnant woman is too old to raise a child (advanced maternal age) or completed

childbearing/childrearing
▪ The fetus is not of the preferred sex

Abortion Jurisprudence

Normative Jurisprudence

Normative Jurisprudence

The Relationship Between Law & Morality

Abortion Jurisprudence: Normative Jurisprudence

Normative Jurisprudence Examines:

▪ 1) The Relationship Between Law & Morality

▪ 2) The Proper Limits of the Law

Normative Jurisprudence:
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Deontological Ethical Theories

Natural Law

▪ According to Natural Law, Abortion is Always Immoral

• Rationale for the View that Abortion is Immoral

• Abortion is immoral because it violates fetus’ fundamental
and inalienable right to life

o We have a moral obligation to preserve life – especially
innocent life

Normative Jurisprudence:
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Deontological Ethical Theories (continued)

Kantian Ethics

▪ According to Kantian Ethics, Abortion can be Moral or Immoral

• Rationale for the View that Abortion is Immoral
o All human life has equal value – even unborn/fetal life

o Since the fetus’ life has value, we have a duty to treat it with dignity
(as an end unto itself/not merely as a means to an end

o Abortion is immoral because it treats the fetus as a means to an end
(we are aborting the fetus so that the pregnant woman can achieve
happiness/fulfill her goals )

Normative Jurisprudence:
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Deontological Ethical Theories (continued)

Kantian Ethics (continued)

• Rationale for the View that Abortion is Moral
o Since the pregnant woman’s life has value, we have a duty to

treat her with dignity (as an end unto herself/not merely as a
means to an end)

o Abortion is moral because it treats the woman as an end unto
herself (a person with rights, needs and desires)

o Abortion is moral because forcing a woman to carry child she
doesn’t want (which we would be doing if abortion was
prohibited) treats her [the pregnant woman] as a means to an
end (she is being used as an “oven” to bake the fetus)

Normative Jurisprudence:
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories
Utilitarianism

▪ According to Utilitarianism, Abortion can be Moral or Immoral

• Whether Abortion is moral depends on whether it produces the
greatest good for the greatest number of people.

• We must make this determination on a case-by-case basis by tallying
the positive & negative consequences of (the good & bad that will
result from) each woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy.

o When determining the morality of abortion, we must weigh the
potentially positive consequences that legalized abortion might
have for some people against the potentially negative consequences
that it might have for others

Normative Jurisprudence:
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories (continued)

Utilitarianism (continued)

▪ Rationale for the View that Abortion is Moral

• The Positive Consequences of Abortion Outweigh Its Negative
Consequences

o Potentially Positive Consequences of Abortion
▪ It allows women to make decisions about their bodies & their

future without government interference

▪ It reduces injury and death caused by unsafe illegal abortions

▪ It reduces the number of unwanted & neglected children

Normative Jurisprudence:
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories (continued)

Utilitarianism (continued)

▪ Rationale for the View that Abortion is Moral (continued)

o Potentially Positive Consequences of Abortion (continued)
▪ It has a positive effect on women’s education, careers &

finances

▪ It has a positive effect on romantic relationships

▪ It saves taxpayers money on Medicaid & other social services
programs (welfare, food stamps)

▪ It reduces crime

Normative Jurisprudence:
Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories (continued)

Utilitarianism (continued)

▪ Rationale for the View that Abortion is Immoral

• The Negative Consequences of Abortion Outweigh Its Positive
Consequences

o Potentially Negative Consequences of Abortion
▪ It sanctions the senseless killing of innocent life/devalues

the sanctity of human life
▪ It interferes with doctors’ roles as healers & violates the

Hippocratic Oath
▪ It has a negative effect on a woman’s health

Normative Jurisprudence:
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories (continued)

Utilitarianism (continued)

▪ Rationale for the View that Abortion is Immoral (continued)
o Potentially Negative Consequences of Abortion (continued)
▪ It deprives fathers of the opportunity to raise their children
▪ It’s a drain on taxpayers
▪ It reduces the number of adoptable babies
▪ It could expose women in vulnerable groups to pressure to

terminate their pregnancies
▪ It eliminates the fetus’ potential contribution to society
▪ It negatively affects people with genetic abnormalities
▪ It’s a slippery slope to Eugenics

Normative Jurisprudence:
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories (continued)

Ethical Altruism

▪ According to Ethical Altruism, Abortion can be Moral or Immoral

• Whether abortion is moral depends on why the pregnant woman
had the abortion:

o Abortion Is Moral
▪ Abortion is moral if the pregnant woman did it for unselfish

reasons/for someone else’s benefit (to her own detriment)

o Abortion Is Immoral
▪ Abortion is immoral if the pregnant woman did it for selfish

reasons/for her own benefit (to someone else’s detriment)

Normative Jurisprudence:
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories (continued)

Ethical Egoism

▪ According to Ethical Egoism, Abortion can be Moral or Immoral

• Whether abortion is moral depends on why the pregnant woman
had the abortion:

o Abortion Is Moral
▪ Abortion is moral if the pregnant woman did it for selfish

reasons/for her own benefit (to someone else’s detriment)

o Abortion Is Immoral
▪ Abortion is immoral if the pregnant woman did it for unselfish

reasons/for someone else’s benefit (to her own detriment)

Normative Jurisprudence

Freedom & The Proper Limits of the Law

Normative Jurisprudence:
Freedom and The Proper Limits of the Law

The Harm Principle

▪ The government may prohibit abortion only if doing so is necessary
to prevent pregnant women from causing harm to others

• A law that bans abortion out of the government’s desire to spare
the fetus – which it deems to be a person – from being killed, is
justified by the Harm Principle

Normative Jurisprudence:
Freedom and The Proper Limits of the Law

The Principle of Legal Paternalism

▪ The government may prohibit abortion if doing so is necessary to
prevent pregnant women from causing physical or psychological
harm to themselves

• A law that bans abortion out of the government’s desire to
protect pregnant women from suffering long-term psychological
damage as a result of their decision to terminate their
pregnancies is justified by the Principle of Legal Paternalism

Normative Jurisprudence:
Freedom and The Proper Limits of the Law

The Principle of Legal Moralism

▪ The government may prohibit abortion if society deems the
practice [of abortion] to be immoral

• A law that bans abortion because society, as a whole,
believes that it’s immoral to destroy human life is justified
by the Principle of Legal Moralism

Critical Jurisprudence

Critical Jurisprudence

Legal Realism

▪ Legal Realists believe that when judges hear abortion cases,
they often base their decision on their own political and moral
views on abortion instead of relying on court precedent

• Example: In Gonzales v Carhart the conservative leaning US
Supreme Court ignored the precedent set by Roe, Doe and
Casey by upholding a federal law that banned the partial
birth abortion procedure without including an exception for
instances where the procedure was necessary to protect the
health of the pregnant woman.

Critical Jurisprudence

Critical Legal Studies

Critical Legal Studies Theorists believe that abortions laws are
enacted to oppress the poor and keep the wealthy in power

▪ When Abortion is Prohibited or Restricted, the Poor Suffer the Most

• Abortion prohibitions & restrictions disproportionately affect the
poor

▪ When Abortion is Legal, the Poor Suffer the Most

• Abortion is an instrument of class genocide

Critical Jurisprudence

Critical Race Theory

Critical Race Theorists believe that abortions laws are enacted to
oppress racial and ethnic minorities and keep Whites in power

▪ When Abortion is Prohibited or Restricted, Racial/Ethnic
Minorities Suffer the Most

• Abortion prohibitions & restrictions disproportionately affect
racial and ethnic minorities (specifically, non-Hispanic Blacks)

▪ When Abortion is Legal, Racial/Ethnic Minorities Suffer the Most

• Abortion is an instrument of racial genocide

Critical Jurisprudence
Feminist Legal Theory

Feminist Legal Theorists believe that abortions laws are enacted to oppress
women and keep men in power
▪ When Abortion is Prohibited or Restricted, Women Suffer the Most

• Legalized abortion is vital for gender equality

▪ When Abortion is Legal, Women Suffer the Most
• Abortion doesn’t liberate women, it constrains them by allowing the government to

refrain from giving women what they need to survive socially & financially as
mothers (e.g. paid maternity leave, inexpensive childcare, programs that
reintegrate mothers into the workforce, flexible work and school scheduling)

• Legalized Abortion Damages Women’s Psychological Health

• Legalized Abortion Is a Male Plot. It Allows Men to Sexually Exploit Women
Without Having to Take Responsibility for Any Resulting Children

Applied Jurisprudence

Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis
Part 1

Introduction to Preimplantation
Genetic Diagnosis

Introduction to Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD)

In Vitro Fertilization

In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) is the process of surgically removing eggs
from a woman’s ovaries, combining them with sperm in the
laboratory, and transferring the resulting embryo into the uterus.

Watch Video: “5 Steps to In Vitro Fertilization”

Introduction to Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD)

Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis

Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) is the genetic screening
of embryos created through In Vitro Fertilization prior to uterine
transfer

Watch Video: “How PGD Works”

Introduction to Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD)

Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (continued)

Applications of PGD

PGD can be used to screen embryos for:

1. Genetic defects and diseases

2. Superficial desired traits

3. Genetic compatibility with an existing child (a sibling) in
need of a transplant

Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis

1. Screening for Genetic Defects and
Inherited Diseases

Introduction

Screening for Genetic Defects & Diseases

Introduction: Genetic Defects & Diseases

Couples aware that they carry the gene for a certain genetic defect
or disease, can use PGD to help avoid becoming pregnant/having a
child with that genetic defect or disease.

Specifically, PGD can be used to screen embryos for – and discard
embryos with – specific genetic defects/diseases carried by its
parents prior to uterine transfer (so that only embryos that lack the
specific genetic defect/disease are transferred into the uterus)

PGD can be used to screen for genetic diseases including, but not
limited to, Cystic Fibrosis, Sickle Cell Anemia, Thalassemia, Tay
Sachs Disease, Fragile X Syndrome, Alzheimer’s Disease,
Duchenne’s Muscular Dystrophy etc..

Introduction: Genetic Defects & Diseases

Procedure for Using PGD to Screen
Embryos for Genetic Defects & Inherited Diseases

▪ Embryos created through IVF are tested/screened for the specific
genetic defect/disease carried by one or both of their parents

▪ Only those embryos that are free of the specific genetic
defect/disease are transferred into the uterus

Watch Documentary: “Superhuman: Baby Builders”

Normative Jurisprudence

Screening for Genetic Defects & Diseases

Normative Jurisprudence
The Relationship Between Law & Morality

Normative Jurisprudence: Genetic Defects & Diseases
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Deontological Ethical Theories

Natural Law

▪ According to Natural Law, using PGD to screen embryos for
genetic defects and diseases is Always Immoral

• Rationale:
o The right to life is the most supreme natural right.

o We have a moral obligation to protect life – especially innocent
& defenseless life (embryos).

o Screening embryos for genetic defects and diseases is immoral
because it violates the discarding embryos’ fundamental and
inalienable right to life.

Normative Jurisprudence: Genetic Defects & Diseases
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Deontological Ethical Theories (continued)
Kantian Ethics
▪ According to Kantian Ethics, using PGD to screen embryos for

genetic defects and diseases is Always Immoral
• All human life has intrinsic and equal value regardless of whether it is born

or unborn and regardless of whether it has a genetic defect or disease
o Having a genetic defect or disease does not rob an embryo’s life of

value or justify ending its life
• Since an embryo’s life has value, we have a duty to treat it with dignity (as

an end unto itself, rather than as a means to an end)
o Using PGD to screen embryos for genetic defects and diseases is

immoral because it treats embryos with genetic defects and diseases
as a means to an end (they are created and then destroyed so that
family can achieve happiness)

Normative Jurisprudence: Genetic Defects & Diseases
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories

Utilitarianism

▪ According to Utilitarianism, using PGD to screen embryos for
genetic defects and diseases can be Moral or Immoral
• Whether using PGD to screen embryos for genetic defects and

diseases is moral depends on whether it produces the greatest good for
the greatest number of people.

• We must make this determination on a case-by-case basis by tallying the
positive & negative consequences of (the good & bad that will result from)
each couple’s decision to use PGD to screen embryos for genetic defects
and diseases

Normative Jurisprudence: Genetic Defects & Diseases
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories (continued)

Utilitarianism (continued)
• When determining the morality of using PGD to screen embryos for

genetic defects and diseases, we must weigh the potentially positive
consequences that it might have for some people against the potentially
negative consequences that it might have for others

▪ Rationale for the View that Using PGD to Screen Embryos for
Genetic Defects and Diseases is Moral

• The Positive Consequences of Using PGD to Screen Embryos for
Genetic Defects & Diseases Outweigh Its Negative Consequences

Normative Jurisprudence: Genetic Defects & Diseases
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories (continued)

Utilitarianism (continued)
▪ Rationale for the View that Using PGD to Screen Embryos for

Genetic Defects and Diseases is Moral (continued)
o Potentially Positive Consequences of Using PGD to Screen

Embryos for Genetic Defects and Diseases

▪ It poses no harm

▪ It Saves Families from Unnecessary Suffering

▪ Parents Have the Right to Improve the Health & Wellbeing of
Their Children

▪ It Saves Society Money

Normative Jurisprudence: Genetic Defects & Diseases
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories (continued)

Utilitarianism (continued)
▪ Rationale for the View that Using PGD to Screen Embryos for

Genetic Defects and Diseases is Immoral
• The Negative Consequences of Using PGD to Screen Embryos for

Genetic Defects & Diseases Outweigh Its Positive Consequences
o Potentially Negative Consequences of Using PGD to Screen

Embryos for Genetic Defects and Diseases
▪ It violates the discarded embryos’ right to life
▪ It devalues the sanctity human life
▪ Genetics is A game of statistics – not an exact science
▪ Society could lack the benefits of people with genetic defects &

diseases

Normative Jurisprudence: Genetic Defects & Diseases
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories (continued)

Utilitarianism (continued)
▪ Rationale for the View that Using PGD to Screen Embryos for

Genetic Defects and Diseases is Immoral (continued)
o Potentially Negative Consequences of Using PGD to Screen

Embryos for Genetic Defects and Diseases (continued)
▪ It could lead to reduction in institutional support and funds for

medical research into genetic defects & diseases
▪ It could lead to increased discrimination & stigmatization against

people with genetic defects & diseases
▪ It could lead to a lonelier world for people with genetic defects &

diseases
▪ It could reduce the genetic diversity of the human species
▪ It’s a slippery slope to eugenics (the practice of deliberately &

artificially improving the genetic quality of the human species)

Normative Jurisprudence: Genetic Defects & Diseases
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories (continued)

Ethical Altruism
▪ According to Ethical Altruism, using PGD to screen embryos for

genetic defects and diseases can be Moral or Immoral

• Using PGD to Screen for Genetic Defects & Diseases Is Moral if it
was done for unselfish reasons (solely to benefit someone else)
o e.g. Screening embryos for genetic defects & diseases because

you want to spare your child from unnecessary suffering

• Using PGD to Screen for Genetic Defects & Diseases Is Immoral if it
was done for selfish reasons (solely to benefit yourself)
o e.g. Screening embryos for genetic defects & diseases because

you don’t want to be burdened by a child with special needs

Normative Jurisprudence: Genetic Defects & Diseases
The Relationship between Law & Morality

Teleological Ethical Theories (continued)

Ethical Egoism
▪ According to Ethical Egoism, using PGD to screen embryos for

genetic defects and diseases can be Moral or Immoral

• Using PGD to Screen for Genetic Defects & Diseases Is Moral if it
was done for selfish reasons (solely to benefit yourself)
o e.g. Screening embryos for genetic defects & diseases because

you don’t want to be burdened by a child with special needs

• Using PGD to Screen for Genetic Defects & Diseases Is Immoral if it
was done for unselfish reasons (solely to benefit someone else)
o e.g. Screening embryos for genetic defects & diseases because

you want to spare your child from unnecessary suffering

Normative Jurisprudence
Freedom & The Proper Limits of the Law

Normative Jurisprudence: Genetic Defects & Diseases
The Proper Limits of the Law continued

The Harm Principle

The government may prohibit using PGD to screen embryos for
genetic defects and diseases only if doing so is necessary to prevent
harm to others

• e.g. A law that bans the practice of using PGD to screen for
genetic defects & diseases out of the government’s desire to
prevent increased discrimination and stigmatization against the
generically inferior

Normative Jurisprudence: Genetic Defects & Diseases
The Proper Limits of the Law

The Principle of Legal Moralism

The government may prohibit using PGD to screen embryos for
genetic defects and diseases if society as a whole deems the practice
to be immoral

▪ e.g. A law that bans the practice of using PGD to screen embryos
for genetic defects and diseases because society as a whole
believes that the practice is immoral

Critical Jurisprudence

Screening for Genetic Defects & Diseases

Critical Jurisprudence: Genetic Defects & Diseases

Critical Legal Studies

Using PGD to screen embryos for genetic defects and diseases is so
expensive that only the wealthy will be able to afford it
▪ Due to the expensive nature of screening embryos for genetic

defects and diseases, legalizing the practice would
o Give the wealthy an unfair genetic advantage over the poor
o Exacerbate socioeconomic inequality by creating a genetic

underclass

Critical Jurisprudence: Genetic Defects & Diseases

Critical Race Theory

Using PGD to screen embryos for genetic defects and diseases is so
expensive that only the wealthy will be able to afford it.

Since Racial & Ethnic minorities are disproportionately poor in this
country, legalizing the use of PGD to screen embryos for genetic
defects and diseases will perpetuate racial inequality & further
devalue minorities

▪ Due to the expensive nature of using PGD to screen embryos for
genetic defects and diseases, legalizing the practice would
exacerbate racial inequality by giving Whites (who are
disproportionately wealthy) an unfair genetic advantage over racial
and ethnic minorities (who are disproportionately poor)

Writerbay.net

Do you need academic writing help? Our quality writers are here 24/7, every day of the year, ready to support you! Instantly chat with a customer support representative in the chat on the bottom right corner, send us a WhatsApp message or click either of the buttons below to submit your paper instructions to the writing team.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper
Writerbay.net