Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 26 (2):105-110 (2005)
|Abstract||In order to understand the nature of human embryos I first distinguish between active and passive potentiality, and then argue that the former is found in human gametes and embryos (even in embryos in vitro that may fail to be implanted) because they all have an indwelling power or capacity to initiate certain changes. Implantation provides necessary conditions for the actualization of that prior, active potentiality. This does not imply that embryos are potential persons that do not deserve the same respect as actual persons. To claim that embryos become persons is to understand the predicate person as a phase sortal, roughly equivalent to adult person. This entails that we would not be essentially persons. In order to explain the traditional understanding of person as a proper sortal rather than a phase sortal, the author distinguishes between proximate and remote potentiality, and shows that, unlike feline embryos, human embryos, by their genetic constitution, possess the remote potentiality to later exercise the typically human activities. It follows that they are already persons essentially.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Aaron Simmons (2012). Do Embryos Have Interests? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 9 (1):57-66.
E. Christian Brugger (2009). “Other Selves”: Moral and Legal Proposals Regarding the Personhood of Cryopreserved Human Embryos. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (2):105-129.
John P. Lizza (2010). Potentiality and Persons at the Margins of Life. Diametros 26:44-57.
Lisa Bortolotti & John Harris (2005). Stem Cell Research, Personhood and Sentience. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 10:68-75.
Mary B. Mahowald (2005). Another View of Potentiality and Human Embryos. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 26 (2):111-113.
Elizabeth Harman (2003). The Potentiality Problem. Philosophical Studies 114 (1-2):173 - 198.
Mary B. Mahowald (2004). Respect for Embryos and the Potentiality Argument. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25 (3):209-214.
Carolyn McLeod & Françoise Baylis (2006). Feminists on the Inalienability of Human Embryos. Hypatia 21 (1):1-14.
Stephen S. Hanson (2006). “More on Respect for Embryos and Potentiality: Does Respect for Embryos Entail Respect for in Vitro Embryos?”. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (3):215-226.
Alfonso Gómez-Lobo (2004). Does Respect for Embryos Entail Respect for Gametes? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25 (3):199-208.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads26 ( #53,586 of 722,873 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,917 of 722,873 )
How can I increase my downloads?