Are those who subscribe to the view that early embryos are persons irrational and inconsistent? A reply to Brock
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (2):102-106 (2007)
Dan Brock has asserted that those who claim that the early embryo has full moral status are not consistent, and that the rationality of such a position is dubious when it is adopted from a religious perspective. I argue that both claims are flawed. Starting with the second claim, which is grounded in Brock’s moral abstolutist position, I argue that Brock has provided no argument on why the religious position should be less rational than the secular position. With regard to the first claim, I argue that those who hold the view that the early embryo has full moral status can be consistent even if they do not oppose sexual reproduction, even if they do not grieve as much over the loss of embryos as over the loss of other humans, even if they prefer to save one child instead of 100 embryos in the event of fire, and even if they do not accept racism and sexism
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
Jan Deckers (2009). Vegetarianism, Sentimental or Ethical? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22 (6):573-597.
Similar books and articles
Carolyn McLeod & Françoise Baylis (2006). Feminists on the Inalienability of Human Embryos. Hypatia 21 (1):1-14.
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.
Alfonso Gómez-Lobo (2005). On Potentiality and Respect for Embryos: A Reply to Mary Mahowald. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 26 (2):105-110.
Lisa Bortolotti & John Harris (2005). Stem Cell Research, Personhood and Sentience. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 10:68-75.
Colin Radford (2000). Neuroscience and Anna; a Reply to Glenn Hartz. Philosophy 75 (3):437-440.
Aaron Simmons (2012). Do Embryos Have Interests? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 9 (1):57-66.
Christian Munthe (2001). Divisibility and the Moral Status of Embryos. Bioethics 15 (5-6):382-397.
Elizabeth Harman (2003). The Potentiality Problem. Philosophical Studies 114 (1-2):173 - 198.
S. K. Wertz (2012). Persons and Collingwoods Account. Collingwood and British Idealism Studies 17 (2):189-202.
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.
Mark Moller (2009). Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research and the Discarded Embryo Argument. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (2):131-145.
Dan W. Brock (2010). Creating Embryos for Use in Stem Cell Research. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38 (2):229-237.
Edmund Dain (2006). Contextualism and Nonsense in Wittgenstein's Tractatus. South African Journal of Philosophy 25 (2):91-101.
P. Tully (2011). Researchers and Firing Squads: Questions Concerning the Use of Frozen Human Embryos. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 36 (5):516-528.
Timothy Murphy (2012). The Afterlife of Embryonic Persons: What a Strange Place Heaven Must Be. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 25:684-688.
Added to index2010-08-24
Total downloads9 ( #159,846 of 1,102,934 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #297,435 of 1,102,934 )
How can I increase my downloads?