The Moral Status of Human Fetuses

Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst (1988)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The study attempts to determine whether or not human fetuses have moral status. Three broad categories of answers to the question were analyzed. The arguments developed by Michael Tooley in Abortion and Infanticide are assessed as representative of the liberal view. Those of L. W. Sumner in Abortion and Moral Theory stand as moderate claims and in the position defended by William May in "Abortion and Man's Moral Being" represents a conservative position. The work of other authors is drawn upon to help analyze the central arguments and to provide alternate interpretations. Among these are Jane English, Judith Thomson, Christina Hoff Sommers, Ronald Green, Joseph Donceel, Lawrence Becker, and Gareth Matthews. ;Though each of the three principal authors is found to present potentially forceful arguments, none of them is thought to provide a fully convincing account of the moral status of fetuses. Important difficulties stem from the use of particular theories of rights and from inadequate treatment of the concept of potentiality. ;The study arrives at two conclusions. The first is that arguments for or against the moral status of fetuses are grounded in more basic, conflicting moral theories about rights or moral behavior. Thus the question of the moral status of fetuses is not likely to receive a universally acceptable answer before moral philosophers come to agreement on basic moral principles. ;The second is that the discussions above have nonetheless yielded two important considerations which together form the basis of a tenable position on the moral status of fetuses. I suggest that an argument can be developed from two claims. One is a conservative claim that an embryo or fetus is the same entity as a later human being. The other is a moral principle discussed by Michael Tooley, viz. that where an entity will at some time in its life have rights, it is wrong to affect it so that the entity will be incapable of exercising those rights when the time comes. The argument supports the conclusion that, from the period of the embryo on, there is an entity that merits our moral consideration

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

    This entry is not archived by us. If you are the author and have permission from the publisher, we recommend that you archive it. Many publishers automatically grant permission to authors to archive pre-prints. By uploading a copy of your work, you will enable us to better index it, making it easier to find.

    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 106,168

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-02-05

Downloads
22 (#1,071,209)

6 months
6 (#724,158)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Abortion and infanticide.Michael Tooley - 1972 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 2 (1):37-65.
On being morally considerable.Kenneth E. Goodpaster - 1978 - Journal of Philosophy 75 (6):308-325.
Understanding the abortion argument.Roger Wertheimer - 1971 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (1):67-95.
Abortion and Infanticide.Nancy Davis - 1985 - Philosophical Review 94 (3):436.
Abortion and self-defense.Nancy Davis - 1984 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 13 (3):175-207.

View all 16 references / Add more references