It's possible to make sense of what's morally at stake in an appreciation of the gift of life, or the gift of a child, without necessarily presupposing that there is a giver. What matters is that the gift - in this case, the child - not be wholly our own doing, our own product.

It's ultimately the purpose of education to cultivate the love of learning for its own sake.

I think too often in our society parents, who may have good impulses, overreach and try to mold and shape and direct their child.

Democracy does not require perfect equality, but it does require that citizens share in a common life.

I would include non-medical sex selection as one of those practices that I think is morally questionable and that can carry adverse social consequences.

What intrigued me most was not the technology as such but the questions about the human goods, the fundamental human values and virtues that are raised by debates over biotechnology.

In natural pregnancy, more than half of fertilized eggs fail to implant or are otherwise lost. Should we regard that as an instance of infant mortality? And if so, why are we not mounting ambitious public health campaigns to try to save and rescue all of the fertilized eggs that are lost in natural pregnancy? We would need a public health campaign of massive proportions if there really were over a fifty percent rate of infant mortality.