Final answer:
Callahan and Graber likely hold differing views on reproductive technology, with one potentially viewing it as empowering for women and the other as a form of oppression. The morality of genetically engineering embryos involves complex ethical considerations, particularly when debating the modification of health-related versus physical and intellectual traits.
Step-by-step explanation:
Callahan's position on reproductive technology is different from Graber's view in the sense that they likely have contrasting perspectives on the ethical implications of such technologies. While the specific views of Callahan and Graber are not provided, the context suggests that there is a debate within feminist circles about the empowerment versus oppression that reproductive technology can bring. Some feminists, possibly like Callahan, may view it as a means of empowerment for infertile women, providing them an option to have children. Others, potentially like Graber, may argue it perpetuates male dominance and can coerce women into motherhood unwillingly, raising ethical concerns about autonomy and consent. When considering the morality of genetically engineering embryos, it is essential to reflect on the ethical and social issues. Questions that require an understanding of genetics might include: Is it ethical to modify an embryo's genetic traits to prevent genetic diseases? What are the long-term societal impacts of selecting traits like physical beauty or intelligence? Are there any safeguards to prevent inequality or discrimination based on genetically engineered traits? It is a complex ethical issue to determine whether parents should genetically engineer an embryo for health, beauty, or intelligence. Engineering for health might be seen as a moral imperative to alleviate suffering and prevent disease. However, engineering for beauty or intelligence carries concerns about eugenics, the potential exacerbation of social inequalities, and the reduction of human diversity. In essence, there could be significant differences between these aims, as one addresses critical health issues, while the others reflect societal values and biases that could lead to controversial outcomes.