David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 13 (01):75-90 (2004)
I have argued that because human sexual reproduction inevitably involves the creation and destruction of embryos, it is a problematic activity for those who believe that the embryo is “one of us.” Or, if it is not a problematic activity, then neither is the creation and destruction of embryos for a purpose of comparable moral seriousness—the development of lifesaving therapy, for example. I assume that, whereas it is possible for the very first act of unprotected intercourse to result in a live human baby, and hence not in a given case cause any embryo loss, this is a rare event and that, statistically, for every live birth from three to five embryos must be created only to die. For dramatic effect, I assume that five is a reasonable figure, giving each embryo a 20% chance of survival; however, nothing in the argument depends on any specific figures being correct. a
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Mark T. Nelson (2010). Y and Z Are Not Off the Hook: The Survival Lottery Made Fairer. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (4):396-401.
Sid Z. Leiman (1983). Therapeutic Homicide: A Philosophic and Halakhic Critique of Harris' 'Survival Lottery'. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 8 (3):257-268.
John Harris (1975). The Survival Lottery. Philosophy 50 (191):81 - 87.
Julian Savulescu & John Harris (2004). The Creation Lottery: Final Lessons From Natural Reproduction: Why Those Who Accept Natural Reproduction Should Accept Cloning and Other Frankenstein Reproductive Technologies. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 13 (01):90-95.
John Harris (1978). Hanink on the Survival Lottery. Philosophy 53 (203):100 - 101.
J. T. Manning & D. P. E. Dickson (1986). Environmental Change, Mutational Load and the Advantage of Sexual Reproduction. Acta Biotheoretica 35 (3):149-162.
C. J. Mcknight (1996). The Survival of the Survival Lottery. Journal of Applied Philosophy 13 (1):101-108.
A. Ruvinsky (1997). Sex, Meiosis and Multicellularity. Acta Biotheoretica 45 (2):127-141.
J. G. Hanink (1976). On the Survival Lottery. Philosophy 51 (196):223 - 225.
James M. Stearns & Shaheen Borna (1995). The Ethics of Lottery Advertising: Issues and Evidence. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 14 (1):43 - 51.
Peter Singer (1977). Utility and the Survival Lottery. Philosophy 52 (200):218 - 222.
C. Herrera (2009). Tinkering with the Survival Lottery During a Public Health Crisis. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 34 (2):181-194.
Søren Holm (2004). Response to “The Creation Lottery” by Julian Savulescu and John Harris (CQ Vol 13, No 1): The Creation Lottery and Method in Bioethics: A Comment on Savulescu and Harris. [REVIEW] Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 13 (03):283-287.
Chris Klok, Remko Holtkamp, Rob van Apeldoorn, Marcel E. Visser & Lia Hemerik (2006). Analysing Population Numbers of the House Sparrow in the Netherlands with a Matrix Model and Suggestions for Conservation Measures. Acta Biotheoretica 54 (3).
Added to index2010-08-24
Total downloads27 ( #112,282 of 1,724,852 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #349,138 of 1,724,852 )
How can I increase my downloads?