David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Public Affairs Quarterly 11 (1):1-19 (1997)
I argue that the personhood of a fetus is analogous to the the heap. If this is correct, then the moral status or intrinsic value of a fetus would be supervenient upon the fetus's biological development. Yet to compare its claim vis-a-vis its mother's, we need to consider not only their moral status, but also the type of claim they each have. Thus we have to give weight to the two factors or variables of the mother's moral status and her claim to some lesser good . And then we have to consider the fetus's lesser moral status and its claim to some greater good, namely, life. I argue that we do not know how to compare these two-variable claims. This also explains why the central cases of abortion have been so difficult to resolve. I suggest that the problem of animal rights has a similar structure
|Keywords||Personhood of a fetus Paradox of the Heap Impossibility to compare two-variable claims Problem of Abortion Problem of Animal Rights|
|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
F. M. Kamm (1992). Creation and Abortion: A Study in Moral and Legal Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
Paul A. Roth (1983). Personhood, Property Rights, and the Permissibility of Abortion. Law and Philosophy 2 (2):163 - 191.
Hon-Lam Li & Anthony Yeung (eds.) (2007). New Essays in Applied Ethics: Animal Rights, Personhood and the Ethics of Killing. Palgrave Macmillan.
Donald Wilson (2007). Abortion, Persons, and Futures of Value. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 14 (2):86-97.
Hon-Lam Li (2002). Animal Research, Non-Vegetarianism, and the Moral Status of Animals - Understanding the Impasse of the Animal Rights Problem. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (5):589 – 615.
Holly M. Smith (1983). Intercourse and Moral Responsibility for the Fetus. In William B. Bondesson, H. Tristram Englehardt, Stuart Spicker & Daniel H. Winship (eds.), Abortion and the Status of the Fetus. D. Reidel
Philippa Foot (1967). The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect. Oxford Review 5:5-15.
Ronald M. Green (1974). Conferred Rights and the Fetus. Journal of Religious Ethics 2 (1):55 - 75.
Nathan Nobis (2002). Who Needs the ’Actual Future Principle’?: Harman on Abortion. Southwest Philosophy Review 18 (2):55-63.
Eike-Henner W. Kluge (2012). Ethical Considerations on Methods Used in Abortions. Health Care Analysis (1):1-18.
Added to index2011-05-23
Total downloads29 ( #143,634 of 1,934,424 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #145,801 of 1,934,424 )
How can I increase my downloads?