Treating Humanity as an Inviolable End: An Analysis of Contraception and Altered Nuclear Transfer

Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 33 (1):1-16 (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

I argue that contraception is morally wrong but that periodic abstinence (or natural family planning) is not. Further, I argue that altered nuclear transfer—a proposed technique for creating human stem cells without destroying human embryos—is morally wrong for the same reason that contraception is. Contrary to what readers might expect, my argument assumes nothing about the morality of cloning or abortion and requires no premises about God or natural teleology. Instead, I argue that contraception and altered nuclear transfer are morally wrong because they fail to treat humanity as an inviolable end

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

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

Glasgow’s Conception of Kantian Humanity.Richard Dean - 2008 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 46 (2):pp. 307-314.
Designer Babies and Treating People as a Means.Tuija Takala - 2007 - The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 1:245-249.
The value of humanity in Kant's moral theory.Richard Dean - 2006 - New York: Oxford University Press.
The doomsday argument and the number of possible observers.Ken D. Olum - 2002 - Philosophical Quarterly 52 (207):164-184.
Cosmism in European Thought.Dmitry Shlapentokh - 2001 - Journal of Philosophical Research 26:497-546.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-02-08

Downloads
128 (#138,934)

6 months
12 (#200,125)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Lawrence Masek
Ohio Dominican University

Citations of this work

Metaphysical Problems in the Philosophy of Medicine and Bioethics.A. E. Hinkley - 2008 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 33 (2):101-105.

Add more citations

References found in this work

A defense of abortion.Judith Jarvis Thomson - 1971 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (1):47-66.
Why abortion is immoral.Don Marquis - 1989 - Journal of Philosophy 86 (4):183-202.
Abortion and infanticide.Michael Tooley - 1972 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 2 (1):37-65.
Abortion and Infanticide.Michael Tooley - 1972 - Philosophy 59 (230):545-547.
Who is entitled to double effect?Joseph Boyle - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):475-494.

View all 15 references / Add more references