David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3 (1-2):43-54 (2006)
Most opponents of somatic cell nuclear transfer and embryonic stem cell technologies base their arguments on the twin assertions that the embryo is either a human being or a potential human being, and that it is wrong to destroy a human being or potential human being in order to produce stem cell lines. Proponents’ justifications of stem cell research are more varied, but not enough to escape the charge of obsession with the status of the embryo. What unites the two warring sides in ‘the stem cell wars’ is that women are equally invisible to both: ‘the lady vanishes.’ Yet the most legitimate property in the body is that which women possess in their reproductive tissue and the products of their reproductive labour. By drawing on the accepted characterisation in the common law of property as a bundle of rights, and on a Hegelian model of contract as mutual recognition, we can lessen the impact of the tendency to regard women and their ova as merely receptacles and women’s reproductive labour as unimportant.
|Keywords||Stem cells Ovum Women’s rights Commerce Tissue and organ procurement|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Mi-Kyung Kim (2009). Oversight Framework Over Oocyte Procurement for Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer: Comparative Analysis of the Hwang Woo Suk Case Under South Korean Bioethics Law and U.S. Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (5):367-384.
Katherine Carroll & Catherine Waldby (2012). Informed Consent and Fresh Egg Donation for Stem Cell Research. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 9 (1):29-39.
Heidi Mertes & Guido Pennings (2011). The Force of Dissimilar Analogies in Bioethics. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 32 (2):117-128.
Donna L. Dickenson (2013). The Commercialization of Human Eggs in Mitochondrial Replacement Research. New Bioethics: A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body 19 (1):18-29.
Similar books and articles
Brooke Ellison & Jaymie Meliker (2011). Assessing the Risk of Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome in Egg Donation: Implications for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. American Journal of Bioethics 11 (9):22-30.
A. -K. M. Andersson (2011). Embryonic Stem Cells and Property Rights. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 36 (3):221-242.
Melinda B. Fagan (2011). Social Experiments in Stem Cell Biology. Perspectives on Science 19 (3):235-262.
Søren Holm (2006). Who Should Control the Use of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines: A Defence of the Donors' Ability to Control. [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3 (1-2):55-68.
Katrien Devolder & John Harris (2007). The Ambiguity of the Embryo: Ethical Inconsistency in the Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate. Metaphilosophy 38 (2-3):153–169.
Mark T. Brown (2009). Moral Complicity in Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 19 (1):pp. 1-22.
Bernard Dickens, International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) Guidelines for the Conduct of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research (December 2006).
Nikolaus Knoepffler (2004). Stem Cell Research: An Ethical Evaluation of Policy Options. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (1):55-74.
Françoise Baylis & Carolyn McLeod (2007). The Stem Cell Debate Continues: The Buying and Selling of Eggs for Research. Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (12):726-731.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #135,063 of 1,098,611 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #113,599 of 1,098,611 )
How can I increase my downloads?