This article needs attention from an expert in Philosophy. See the talk page for details.(April 2012) |
This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic.(April 2012) |
In philosophy and bioethics, potential (future) person (in plural, sometimes termed potential people) has been defined as an entity which is not currently a person but which is capable of developing into a person, given certain biologically and/or technically possible conditions. [1] The term unconceived has also been used in a similar sense, but does not necessarily include the capability of being conceived or developing into a person.
In 1977, Canadian Philosopher Mary Anne Warren discussed various definitions for potential people. Most simply, a potential person could be defined as the currently existing genetic material that will constitute them, such as a sexually viable egg and sperm cell taken together, also when still being located in separate places. [1] Potential people may also be defined from reproductive capability, which also includes the presence of other necessary factors for becoming a person, [1] such as the availability of a womb to grow in, the will and means of parents to conceive, or even the care after birth to raise the individual into a complete sentient being. Thus the progression towards existence of a potential person usually lies mainly in the maturation of previous people to develop the will and ability to become potential parents.
In this sense, destroying sperm cells, for instance, does not significantly reduce the number of potential persons, because, provided the will and other means to conceive a person remains the same, there is still the possibility to extract the genetic information from remaining sperm cells or, theoretically, even from somatic cells such as skin cells (by somatic cell nuclear transfer). Actually, in this sense, for a man that intends to conceive only two children, the billions of sperm cells he produces throughout his lifetime may, taken together, still only be regarded as a contributing factor to a maximum of two potential persons.
If including the will to conceive as a necessary component of a potential person, the mere certain decision of a woman to not let an embryo grow inside her uterus may be regarded as sufficient to disqualify that embryo as a potential person, because a will that is strong enough would make that woman turn to even unsafe abortion, and a certain future abortion makes it certain that there won't be a necessary uterus for the embryo to grow inside to become a person.
Strangely, in such a view, an act of a woman in changing her mind from abortion to proceeding with the pregnancy may be regarded as creating a potential person rather than saving the life of one, but other views may be applied once the beginning of actual human personhood has been reached. When taking this view to a larger scale, a population that is very intent on reproducing can be expected to constitute a larger number of potential persons than a population refusing to reproduce, all other factors being equal. When there is only one or a few factors absent to constitute a potential person, that entity may still be termed "a potential person except for...", but the ensuing arguments from this may differ.
The people of the twenty-fifth century have been taken as an example of potential persons, because, although their particular gametes or embryos do not currently exist, there is reproductive capability of the currently living people and resources to make the future existence of those people possible. [1] The mere likelihood of future existence is usually regarded as sufficient to apply the term, as there is a risk that, for example, the people of the twenty-fifth century will never exist because of an event of human extinction. [1]
The beginning of human personhood, where a potential person is instead regarded as a proper person, is a concept currently debated by religion and philosophy. However, there could theoretically be no beginning of potential human personhood because it is dependent on the reproductive capability of the previous generation, which, in turn, is dependent on the reproductive capability of the generation before that etc. etc.
It has been argued that the mere potential of becoming a person confers moral rights on a prima facie basis, [1] [2] or by holding that they are really in some sense actuals. [3] On the other hand, there is the opinion that the potential itself is not of significance. [1]
Among views that reject a prima facie right to potential people, there are, on one hand, claims that potential people are non-actuals and cannot be either benefited or harmed. [3] Also, there are views that, although a potential person has no value in the present, the rightfulness of actions that we make today are still dependent on how they will affect such people in the future, and that we have moral obligations for future generations. [1] An argument for such a view is in finding it logical that the value of an action can be seen as equivalent to the total instrumental value at any time of the chain of events that that action started, which in turn can be seen as equivalent to the total intrinsic value of whatever ends-in-themselves are generated or benefited at the end of that chain of events. For example, a remote friend has a baby, and is about to conceive another, and, for example, happiness is taken as the end-in-itself and receiving a toy is taken as an instrument to it, then, the yet unconceived baby may not be regarded as currently having ethic value, in contrast to the existing baby, but nevertheless, the instrumental value in the action of posting a toy to either of them can be regarded as equivalent, because either alternative would generate equal amount of intrinsic value in the form of happiness in the future, with some modification for, for example, the risk of failing to conceive again, and the burden for the post office or parent in storing the toy until, at least, birth. In such a view, it is uncertain to which extent a lesser probability of becoming a person affects the moral value of that potential person, putting uncertainty to claiming, for example, that a potential person with 50% probability of becoming a person should be treated as having 50% the value of an actual person.
Even among views that the rightfulness of current actions depend on how they will affect yet non-existent people, there may still be differences regarding the justification of bringing people into existence in the first place, or the prevention of it.
A major factor in this issue is whether ends-in-themselves are generally regarded to optimally be maximized or minimized on a total basis or as an average among the people (such as, for example, total versus average utilitarism). A view that favors maximizing an end-in-itself on a total basis may consider it beneficial to have more people brought into existence by the motivation that there are more people to generate it. On the other hand, a view that favors maximizing an end-in-itself on an average basis has suggested that the benefit or harm in an action that supports or prevents bringing a potential person into existence depends on whether that person, on average, will constitute or generate more or less end-in-itself than the average. [1] For example, if happiness is regarded as the end-in-itself, then, it has been claimed to be morally objectionable to bring a potential person into existence that is predicted to be very unhappy. [1]
Another factor that has been suggested is the possible positive or negative value of nonexistence, which can be regarded as weighting against or adding to the values of existence when considering the rightfulness of bringing potential people into existence. [3]
The personal opinion on the value of bringing potential people into existence may be a major factor in many issues, including:
From a view that favors the act of bringing people into existence, it has been argued that avoidance from conceiving a child when there are prerequisites for raising it is comparable to causing the death of one. [4] Also, it has been argued that contraception, and even the decision not to procreate at all could be regarded as immoral on a similar basis as abortion. [1] However, holding value in potential persons does not necessarily decrease support for abortion rights. It has been regarded as justified to induce abortion of a severely disabled fetus in favor for conceiving a new child. However, a major reason that has been given to be cautious about performing abortion with such motivation is the fact that the likelihood of successfully bringing the new child into existence is substantially lower, as the parents may separate, one of them may become sterile, or they may change their minds about having children. [2] A comparable situation is the abortion of an unintended pregnancy in favor for conceiving a new child later in better conditions. [4]
In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a process of fertilisation where an egg is combined with sperm in vitro. The process involves monitoring and stimulating a patient's ovulatory process, removing an ovum or ova from their ovaries and letting sperm fertilise them in a culture medium in a laboratory. After the fertilised egg (zygote) undergoes embryo culture for 2–6 days, it is transferred by catheter into the uterus, with the intention of establishing a successful pregnancy.
Reproductive technology encompasses all current and anticipated uses of technology in human and animal reproduction, including assisted reproductive technology (ART), contraception and others. It is also termed Assisted Reproductive Technology, where it entails an array of appliances and procedures that enable the realization of safe, improved and healthier reproduction. While this is not true of all people, for an array of married couples, the ability to have children is vital. But through the technology, infertile couples have been provided with options that would allow them to conceive children.
Infertility is the inability of an animal or plant to reproduce by natural means. It is usually not the natural state of a healthy adult, except notably among certain eusocial species. It is the normal state of a human child or other young offspring, because they have not undergone puberty, which is the body's start of reproductive capacity.
A person is a being who has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness, and being a part of a culturally established form of social relations such as kinship, ownership of property, or legal responsibility. The defining features of personhood and, consequently, what makes a person count as a person, differ widely among cultures and contexts.
The abortion debate is a longstanding, ongoing controversy that touches on the moral, legal, medical, and religious aspects of induced abortion. In English-speaking countries, the debate most visibly polarizes around adherents of the self-described "pro-choice" and "pro-life" movements. Pro-choice supporters uphold that individuals have the right to make their own decisions about their reproductive health, and that they should have the option to end a pregnancy if they choose to do so, taking into account various factors such as the stage of fetal development, the health of the mother, and the circumstances of the conception. Pro-life advocates, on the other hand, maintain that a fetus is a human being with inherent rights that cannot be overridden by the mother’s choice or circumstances, and that abortion is morally wrong in most or all cases. Both terms are considered loaded in mainstream media, where terms such as "abortion rights" or "anti-abortion" are generally preferred.
Ectogenesis is the growth of an organism in an artificial environment outside the body in which it would normally be found, such as the growth of an embryo or fetus outside the mother's body, or the growth of bacteria outside the body of a host. The term was coined by British scientist J.B.S. Haldane in 1924.
Assisted reproductive technology (ART) includes medical procedures used primarily to address infertility. This subject involves procedures such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), cryopreservation of gametes or embryos, and/or the use of fertility medication. When used to address infertility, ART may also be referred to as fertility treatment. ART mainly belongs to the field of reproductive endocrinology and infertility. Some forms of ART may be used with regard to fertile couples for genetic purpose. ART may also be used in surrogacy arrangements, although not all surrogacy arrangements involve ART. The existence of sterility will not always require ART to be the first option to consider, as there are occasions when its cause is a mild disorder that can be solved with more conventional treatments or with behaviors based on promoting health and reproductive habits.
Embryo donation is one disposition option for users of in vitro fertilisation with remaining fresh or frozen embryos. It is defined as the giving—generally without compensation—of embryos remaining after in vitro fertilization procedures to recipients for procreative implantation or research. Most IVF users with supernumerary embryos make embryo donation decisions after completing their families or discontinuing use of in vitro fertilization. Recipients of embryos donated for procreative implantation typically plan to transfer fresh or frozen embryos into a prepared uterus in order to facilitate pregnancy and childbirth. Recipients of embryos donated for research typically use them for clinical training, quality improvement research, or human embryonic stem cell research.
In religion and philosophy, ensoulment is the moment at which a human or other being gains a soul. Some belief systems maintain that a soul is newly created within a developing child and others, especially in religions that believe in reincarnation, that the soul is pre-existing and added at a particular stage of development.
Christians take multiple positions in the debate on the morality of human cloning. Since Dolly the sheep was successfully cloned on 5 July 1996, and the possibility of cloning humans became a reality, Christian leaders have been pressed to take an ethical stance on its morality. While many Christians tend to disagree with the practice, such as Roman Catholics and a majority of fundamentalist pastors, including Southern Baptists, the views taken by various other Christian denominations are diverse and often conflicting. It is hard to pinpoint any one, definite stance of the Christian religion, since there are so many Christian denominations and so few official statements from each of them concerning the morality of human cloning.
Egg donation is the process by which a woman donates eggs to enable another woman to conceive as part of an assisted reproduction treatment or for biomedical research. For assisted reproduction purposes, egg donation typically involves in vitro fertilization technology, with the eggs being fertilized in the laboratory; more rarely, unfertilized eggs may be frozen and stored for later use. Egg donation is a third-party reproduction as part of assisted reproductive technology.
Julian Savulescu is an Australian philosopher and bioethicist of Romanian origins. He is Chen Su Lan Centennial Professor in Medical Ethics and director of the Centre for Biomedical Ethics at National University of Singapore. He was previously Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, Fellow of St Cross College, Oxford, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, and co-director of the Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities. He is visiting professorial fellow in Biomedical Ethics at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute in Australia, and distinguished visiting professor in law at Melbourne University since 2017. He directs the Biomedical Ethics Research Group and is a member of the Centre for Ethics of Pediatric Genomics in Australia. He is a former editor and current board member of the Journal of Medical Ethics, which is ranked as the No.2 journal in bioethics worldwide by Google Scholar Metrics, as of 2022. In addition to his background in applied ethics and philosophy, he also has a background in medicine and neuroscience and completed his MBBS (Hons) and BMedSc at Monash University, graduating top of his class with 18 of 19 final year prizes in Medicine. He edits the Oxford University Press book series, the Uehiro Series in Practical Ethics.
Controversy over the beginning of pregnancy occurs in different contexts, particularly as it is discussed within the debate of abortion in the United States. Because an abortion is defined as ending an established pregnancy, rather than as destroying a fertilized egg, depending on when pregnancy is considered to begin, some methods of birth control as well as some methods of infertility treatment might be classified as causing abortions.
The genetics and abortion issue is an extension of the abortion debate and the disability rights movement. Since the advent of forms of prenatal diagnosis, such as amniocentesis and ultrasound, it has become possible to detect the presence of congenital disorders in the fetus before birth. Specifically, disability-selective abortion is the abortion of fetuses that are found to have non-fatal mental or physical defects detected through prenatal testing. Many prenatal tests are now considered routine, such as testing for Down syndrome. Women who are discovered to be carrying fetuses with disabilities are often faced with the decision of whether to abort or to prepare to parent a child with disabilities.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It created the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority which is in charge of human embryo research, along with monitoring and licensing fertility clinics in the United Kingdom.
The philosophical aspects of the abortion debate are logical arguments that can be made either in support of or in opposition to abortion.
The beginning of human personhood is the moment when a human is first recognized as a person. There are differences of opinion as to the precise time when human personhood begins and the nature of that status. The issue arises in a number of fields including science, religion, philosophy, and law, and is most acute in debates relating to abortion, stem cell research, reproductive rights, and fetal rights.
Reproductive immunology refers to a field of medicine that studies interactions between the immune system and components related to the reproductive system, such as maternal immune tolerance towards the fetus, or immunological interactions across the blood-testis barrier. The concept has been used by fertility clinics to explain fertility problems, recurrent miscarriages and pregnancy complications observed when this state of immunological tolerance is not successfully achieved. Immunological therapy is a method for treating many cases of previously "unexplained infertility" or recurrent miscarriage.
Religious response to assisted reproductive technology deals with the new challenges for traditional social and religious communities raised by modern assisted reproductive technology. Because many religious communities have strong opinions and religious legislation regarding marriage, sex and reproduction, modern fertility technology has forced religions to respond.
Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law and is closely tied with legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty. According to law, only a legal person has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.