As you reflect on Meilaender’s readings, what is his distinction between procreation and reproduction, as well as that of being begotten versus being made? Do you agree with his description? Why or why not?
I NEED YOU TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION, 350 WORDS NEEDED AND 2 REFERENCES PLEASE
Expert Solution Preview
Introduction:
In Meilaender’s readings, he discusses the distinction between procreation and reproduction, as well as the difference between being begotten and being made. This essay will explore these concepts and evaluate whether or not I agree with Meilaender’s description.
Answer:
Meilaender argues that procreation and reproduction are distinct concepts. Procreation refers to the natural process of conceiving and giving birth to a child, involving the transmission of genetic material from parents to offspring. On the other hand, reproduction encompasses a broader meaning, including both natural and artificial methods of creating a new life.
I agree with Meilaender’s distinction between procreation and reproduction. Procreation embodies the fundamental biological and evolutionary processes that have occurred since the beginning of life. It is deeply rooted in our genetic makeup and carries a sense of continuity with previous generations. Procreational acts involve the union of two individuals, resulting in the creation of a unique combination of genetic material.
Reproduction, however, extends beyond the natural processes and encompasses various assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) such as in vitro fertilization (IVF) and surrogacy. These methods allow individuals who may not be able to procreate naturally to experience parenthood. While ARTs enable the creation of life, they often involve interventions that differ significantly from the natural processes of procreation.
Meilaender also distinguishes between being begotten and being made. Being begotten implies a sense of being part of a continuous lineage, where one inherits traits and characteristics from previous generations. In contrast, being made suggests a deliberate act of creation, usually carried out by an external force or agency.
I find validity in Meilaender’s distinction between being begotten and being made. When we are begotten, we inherit a biological connection to our parents and ancestors, leading to a sense of belonging and a shared heritage. It acknowledges the importance of both nature and nurture in shaping our identities.
However, advances in reproductive technologies challenge the traditional notion of being begotten. For instance, the use of donor gametes or surrogate mothers raises questions about the biological connection between the child and the parents. In such cases, the child may be made rather than begotten.
While I agree with Meilaender’s description of procreation and begottenness, it is crucial to recognize the ethical and philosophical complexities that arise in the realm of reproduction and being made. As medical professionals, we must navigate these discussions while considering the well-being and rights of all individuals involved.
In conclusion, Meilaender’s distinction between procreation and reproduction, as well as being begotten versus being made, is valid and relevant in understanding the complexities of human reproduction in contemporary society. Procreation represents the natural process of conceiving and giving birth to a child, while reproduction encompasses a broader range of methods, including artificial interventions. Being begotten signifies a biological connection and a sense of continuity with previous generations, contrasting with the notion of being made, which implies a deliberate act of creation. These distinctions provide valuable insight into the multifaceted nature of human reproduction and its ethical implications.
