When Governor Davis signed a bill this week authorizing stem cell research in California，he set the stage for possible conflict with the federal government.Behind this polarized controversy，too often，lurk false absolutes that prevent good public policy decisions.

　　The first false absolute is that it‘s always morally wrong to destroy human embryos，because extracorporeal human embryos (that is，embryos existing outside the human body) have the same moral status as human persons.The other unsound absolute is that it’s in no way whatsoever morally problematic to destroy embryos，because they have no moral worth at all;in short，destroying embryos is morally trivial.Fortunately，an alternative moral view to these two problematic positions exists.On this middle view，human embryos should be recognized as having modest moral worth.Consequently we must have serious reasons to destroy them，and in such a case we must show respect for them when we destroy them.

　　A classic example of such a view is seen in native American hunting cultures，1ike the Cree or the Micmac，when the hunters express genuine respect for the animals they destroy.This expression of respect can vary from apologizing to the animal before killing it to avoiding any waste associated with its use.Often the killing itself，or the eating or the later burying of the animal‘s remains，was also done in a way that sincerely demonstrated this respect.Combining such respect with the intent to destroy is neither an ethical paradox nor a sign of hypocrisy.Instead these people knew both that they had good reasons to kill animals and also that doing so was not morally trivial.

　　Closer to home is the deferential treatment shown to human bodies in medical schools.Respect is shown to the body that will be dissected and destroyed by holding memorial services prior to burial or cremation of these human remains.The aim here is the recognition that even the dead human body is worthy of respect in spite of our justifiable destruction of it.The importance of such respect is only highlighted by the moral outrage generated by recent stories where deplorable treatment has been shown to bodies.In short，we should genuinely respect a body even while destroying it.

　　What does this way of avoiding the familiar moral absolutes mean for embryos that could be used for therapeutic purposes? As destroying human embryos is neither tantamount to murder nor morally without cost，then destroying them in vital cases of therapeutic cloning can be justified.But it is only justified when done in a way respectful of the loss of a human entity with moral value.Such respectful destruction also acknowledges some of the genuine ethical concerns of those who believe this destruction is morally very serious.

　　Instead of banning therapeutic cloning or accepting just any use of embryos，we suggest adopting the following practices.Scientists should handle embryos with great respect and this should never be an empty or insincere gesture.This display of moral consideration should include acquiring only the minimum number of embryos required for research and disposing of their remains in a genuinely respectful way.Society should also avoid allowing human embryos to be treated as property by outlawing the buying and selling of them.While extracorporeal human embryos do not have the same moral status as born human beings，there are serious reasons to accord them some modest moral status.In this way our scientific progress need not require the hardening of our hearts.

　　1.It can be inferred from the passage that the President of the United States____.

　　[A] hesitates in making decisions concerning stem cell research

　　[B] insists that embryos have the same moral status as human persons

　　[C] does not lend his support to the use of human embryos

　　[D] is authorized to resolve the conflict of ideas concerning stem cell research

　　2.Of the three positions mentioned in the second paragraph，the author is in favor of____.

　　[A] the first one [B] the second one

　　[C] the third one [D] none of them

　　3.As far as the dispute mentioned in the text is concerned，the“ethical paradox”may refer to the practice of____.

　　[A] saying one thing but doing another

　　[B] showing deference when destroying a thing

　　[C] doing immoral things while claiming to be morally justified

　　[D] providing good but trivial reasons for killing animals

　　4，Showing respect to human embryos means all of the following EXCEPT____.

　　[A] using as few of them as possible in research

　　[B] putting an end to trading them

　　[C] acknowledging their value for therapeutic research

　　[D] handling their remains with due care

　　5.The author seems to suggest that therapeutic cloning____.

　　[A] should be banned [B] should be practiced

　　[C] should be encouraged [D] should be accorded with its due value

　　參考答案：

　　1.[C] 意為：不支持人類胚胎的使用。注意，這是一個推理題，本文并沒有直接提到美國總統(tǒng)的態(tài)度，但是第一段中提到了美國聯(lián)邦政府的態(tài)度，作為政府首腦，美國政府的態(tài)度當然也就是美國總統(tǒng)的態(tài)度。

　　[D]意為：被授權(quán)解決涉及干細胞研究的觀念沖突。

　　2.[C]在使用胚胎做研究問題上，存在兩種相互對立的觀點，作者認為這兩種觀點都太極端，他支持一種“中間道路”立場(middle view)。

　　3.[B] 意為：毀掉一件東西時對之表示尊重。第三段第四句中提到的“倫理悖論”，實際上就是指“combining such respect with the intent to destroy”，這也是本文作者旨在說明的觀點。[C] 意為：做不道德的事情但又聲稱自己道德正當。

　　4.[C] 意為：承認它們對醫(yī)療研究的價值。最后一段第三句提到要盡量少地使用胚胎做研究，并以尊重的方式處理死后的胚胎，因此選擇項[A]和[D]是正確的;最后一段第四句提到要禁止買賣胚胎，因此選擇項[B]表達的意思也與文章相符。

　　5.[B] 意為：可以進行。最后一段第一句明確提到，作者并不贊成禁止克隆研究。實際上，整篇文章談的都是克隆研究的問題，作者并不反對這種研究，只是提醒人們在做這樣的研究時應該注意一些道德倫理問題。[D]意為：應該被賦予其應有的價值。

　　編輯推薦：

　　2015年考研復習如何突破六大誤區(qū)

　　2015考研英語5500大綱詞匯匯編(帶下載)

　　考試吧獨家策劃：2015年考研大綱及解析專題

　　2007-2014年考研政治真題及答案|解析|估分|下載

　　考試吧考研題庫(新增數(shù)學三) 智能做題首選 立即體驗!