Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Persons, Moral Worth, and Embryos pp 163–184Cite as

Fetal Interests, Fetal Persons, and Human Goods

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Philosophy and Medicine ((CSBE,volume 111))

Abstract

The geography of the debate concerning practices destructive of the youngest members of the human species is by now rather well worked out. Of the questions to be answered, there is first the following: are you, the readers of this essay, and I, the author, and others substantially like us, essentially human beings, living biological organisms of the species Homo sapiens? Or are we some other kind of entity, a person, perhaps, or a mind, a brain, or a soul? This is a question of metaphysics.1

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Baker, L.R. 2000. Persons and bodies: A constitution view. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brugger, E.C. 2005. ANT-OAR: A morally acceptable means for deriving pluripotent stem cells. A reply to criticisms. Communio 32: 753–769.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeGrazia, D. 2005. Human identity and bioethics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Descartes, R. 1979. Meditations on first philosophy (trans: Cress, D.W.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donagan, A. 1977. The theory of morality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, J. 1974. The rights of animals and unborn generations. In Philosophy and environmental crisis, ed. W. Blackstone, 43–68. Athens, GA: University Georgia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnis, J. 1980. Natural law and natural rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnis, J.M. 1998. Aquinas: Moral, political, and legal theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, N. 1988. When did i begin? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Garvey, B. 2007. Philosophy of biology. Stocksfield, UK: Acumen.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, R.P., and C. Tollefsen. 2008. Embryo: A defense of human life. New York, NY: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gormally, L. 2010. The good of health and the ends of medicine. In Natural moral law in contemporary society, ed. H. Zaborowski, 264–284. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grisez, G. 1993. The way of the lord Jesus Christ, Volume 2: Living a Christian life. Quincy, IL: Franciscan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grisez, G., J. Boyle, and J. Finnis. 1987. Practical principles, moral truth, and ultimate ends. American Journal of Jurisprudence 32: 99–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guenin, L. 2008. The morality of embryo use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J. 1999. The concept of the person and the value of life. Journal of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics 9: 293–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurlbut, W. 2005. Altered nuclear transfer as a morally acceptable means for the procurement of human embryonic stem cells. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 48: 211–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kripke, S. 1980. Naming and necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, P. 2001. Germain Grisez’s Christian humanism. The American Journal of Jurisprudence 46: 137–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, P. 2009. Human nature and goodness. In The normativity of the natural, ed. M. Cherry, 45–54. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, P. 2011. Substantial identity, rational nature, and the right to life. In Bioethics with liberty and justice: Themes in the work of Joseph Boyle, ed. C. Tollefsen, 23–40. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, P., and Grisez, G. 2011. Total brain death: A response to Alan Shewmon. Bioethics 25: 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, P., and R.P. George. 2008. Body-self dualism in contemporary ethics and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao, M. 2010. The basis of human moral status. The Journal of Moral Philosophy 7: 159–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, J. 1995. An essay concerning human understanding. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre, A. 1982. After virtue, 2nd ed.. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre, A. 1999. Dependent rational animals: Why human beings need the virtues. Chicago, IL: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marquis, D. 1989. Why abortion is immoral. The Journal of Philosophy 86: 138–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquis, D. 1994. Justifying the rights of pregnancy: The interest view. Criminal Justice Ethics 94: 67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquis, D. 2011. Why abortion is seriously wrong: Two views. In Bioethics with liberty and justice: Themes in the work of Joseph Boyle, ed. C. Tollefsen, 3–22. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McMahan, J. 2002. The ethics of killing: Problems at the margins of life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McMahan, J. 2005. Animals. In A companion to applied ethics, eds. R.G. Frey and C.H. Wellman, 525–536. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McMahan, J. 2005. Our fellow creatures. The Journal of Ethics 9: 353–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, T. 1978. The possibility of Altruism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Rourke, K., O.P. 2008. Reflections on the Papal Allocution concerning care for PVS patients. In Artificial nutrition and hydration: The new Catholic Debate, ed. C. Tollefsen, 165–177. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parfit, D. 1984. Reasons and persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, H. 1975. The meaning of meaning. In Mind, language, and reality. Philosophical papers, vol. 2, 215–271. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rachels, J. 1990. Created from animals: The moral implications of Darwinism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raz, J. 1986. The morality of freedom. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, T. 1976. Feinberg on what sorts of beings can have rights. The Southern Journal of Philosophy 14: 485–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. 2002. Unsanctifying human life. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B., and B. Brogaard. 2003. Sixteen days. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 28: 45–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinbock, B. 1992. Life before birth. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinbock, B. 2009. Moral status, moral value, and human embryos: Implications for stem cell research. In The Oxford handbook of bioethics, ed. B. Steinbock, 416–440. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sterelny, K., and P.E. Griffiths. 1999. Sex and death. An introduction to philosophy of biology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, M. 2008. Life and action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tollefsen, C. 2009. No problem: A response to Bernard Prusak’s ‘The problem with the problem of the embryo’. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 83: 583–591.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tooley, M. 1972. Abortion and infanticide. Philosophy and Public Affairs 2: 37–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Inwagen, P. 1990. Material beings. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, M.A. 1994. On the moral and legal status of abortion. In Contemporary issues in bioethics, eds. T.L. Beauchamp and L. Walters, 4th ed., 302–311. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, M.A. 2000. The moral difference between infanticide and abortion: A response to Robert Card. Bioethics 14: 352–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaborowski, H. ed. 2010. Natural moral law in contemporary society. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA

    Christopher Tollefsen

Authors
  1. Christopher Tollefsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Tollefsen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. National Catholic Bioethics Center, 6399 Drexel Rd, Philadelphia, 19151, USA

    Stephen Napier

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tollefsen, C. (2011). Fetal Interests, Fetal Persons, and Human Goods. In: Napier, S. (eds) Persons, Moral Worth, and Embryos. Philosophy and Medicine(), vol 111. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1602-5_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation