Ectogenesis rescue case: a reply to Hendricks

Journal of Medical Ethics (forthcoming)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Hendricks set out to construct an antiabortion version of Jeff McMahan’s Embryo Rescue case in which you have two choices—(1) save a woman from an unwilling pregnancy or (2) save a fetus from being killed. In his Pregnancy Rescue case, he contends we ought to choose (2), which he thinks shows abortion is immoral. However, I argue the Pregnancy Rescue case is a false dilemma because you can save both. I propose an alternative, more elegant dilemma, the Ectogenesis Rescue case with the same choices (1) and (2). Hendricks also believes his case can serve as an antiabortion version of Thomson’s Violinist case, showing that abortion is immoral even if a fetus is not a person. However, while Thomson’s Violinist substitutes the fetus with a person, Hendricks fails to substitute the fetus with something that is not a person. I propose an alternative, the Snakebite Rescue case, which does this.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,745

External links

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

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-09-22

Downloads
18 (#201,463)

6 months
6 (#1,472,471)

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

The Pregnancy Rescue Case: why abortion is immoral.Perry Hendricks - 2024 - Journal of Medical Ethics 50 (5):332-334.
Abortion and the Concept of a Person.Jane English - 1975 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 5 (2):233 - 243.
Ethics of speculation.Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby - 2023 - Journal of Medical Ethics 49 (8):525-525.
The embryo rescue case.S. Matthew Liao - 2006 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (2):141-147.

Add more references