Journal of Medical Ethics:medethics-2021-107318 (forthcoming)

Nicholas Colgrove
Wake Forest University
Recently, I argued that subjects inside of artificial wombs—termed ‘gestatelings’ by Romanis—share the same legal and moral status as newborns. Gestatelings, on my view, are persons in both a legal and moral sense. Kingma challenges these claims. Specifically, Kingma argues that my previous argument is invalid, as it equivocates on the term ‘newborn’. Kingma concludes that questions about the legal and moral status of gestatelings remain ‘unanswered’. I am grateful to Kingma for raising potential concerns with the view I have presented. In this essay, however, I argue that of Kingma’s objections are unpersuasive. First, my original argument does not equivocate on terms like ‘newborn’ or ‘neonate’. The terms denote human beings that have been born recently; that is what matters to the argument. Charges of equivocation, I suspect, rest on a confusion between the denotation and connotations of ‘newborn’. Next, I show that, contra Kingma, it is clear that—under current law in the USA and UK—gestatelings would count as legal persons. Moral personhood is more difficult. On that subject, Kingma’s criticisms have merit. In response, however, I show that my original claim—that gestatelings should count as moral persons—remains true on several philosophical accounts of personhood. Regarding those accounts that imply gestatelings are not moral persons, I argue that advocates face a troubling dilemma. I conclude that regardless of which view of moral personhood one adopts, questions about the moral status of gestatelings are not ‘unanswered’.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2021-107318
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,192
External links

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

Artificial Wombs, Birth, and "Birth": A Response to Romanis.Nicholas Colgrove - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics:medethics-2019-105845.

View all 8 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Artificial Wombs, Birth, and "Birth": A Response to Romanis.Nicholas Colgrove - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics:medethics-2019-105845.
In Defence of Gestatelings: Response to Colgrove.Elselijn Kingma - 2021 - Journal of Medical Ethics 47 (5):355-356.
Artificial Wombs, Birth and ‘Birth’: A Response to Romanis.Nick Colgrove - 2020 - Journal of Medical Ethics 46 (8):554-556.
Killing Fetuses and Killing Newborns.Ezio Di Nucci - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (5):19-20.
Situation-Specific Disease and Dispositional Function: Table 1.Elselijn Kingma - 2016 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 67 (2):391-404.
Naturalism About Health and Disease: Adding Nuance for Progress.Elselijn Kingma - 2014 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39 (6):590-608.
Donald C. Williams’s Defence of Real Metaphysics.A. R. J. Fisher - 2017 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 25 (2):332-355.


Added to PP index

Total views
10 ( #899,956 of 2,507,405 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #277,263 of 2,507,405 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes