Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (3):285 – 304 (2005)

Authors
Abstract
Two different discussions in John Rawls' A Theory of Justice lead naturally to a rather conservative position on the moral status of the human embryo. When discussing paternalism, he claims that the parties in the original position would seek to protect themselves in case they end up as incapacitated or undeveloped human beings when the veil of ignorance is lifted. Since human embryos are examples of such beings, the parties in the original position would seek to protect themselves from their embryonic stages onward. When discussing the basis of equality, Rawls claims that the parties in the original position would guarantee basic rights for all those with the capacity to take part in this original position. To guarantee the basic rights of infants and young children, he goes on to interpret this capacity as a "potentiality that is ordinarily realized in due course." Since human embryos have this potentiality, they too should have basic rights.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/03605310590960175
Options
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: 72,607
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Rawls and the Refusal of Medical Treatment to Children.D. Robert MacDougall - 2010 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (2):130-153.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
24 ( #478,287 of 2,533,648 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #389,210 of 2,533,648 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes