Flesh of the Unborn: On the Political Philosophy of the Unborn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15826/csp.2020.4.1.089

Abstract

This work situates the unborn within the wider discussions in political philosophy. Much existing work on the unborn’s relevance to theoretical discussions focuses on personhood, moral status and pregnant bodies. However, this work argues that the embryonic or fetal body is the crux of political philosophy’s interest in the unborn. There is less work on whether or not to protect the unborn by virtue of having a body, yet it is important because the embryonic or fetal body complicates the boundaries of the unborn’s membership to humanity. This work unpacks the relevance of political philosophy in furthering the discussions on the body of the embryo or fetus. The unborn’s membership to humanity is inescapably embodied because it is with and through a body that the unborn gains access the human world and touches discussions on moral status, personhood, identity and rights. Three cases are provided to substantiate these discussions: moral status, birth restrictions and gene editing, all of which are related to how the embryonic or fetal body becomes a contested space for membership to humanity. This work concludes that the political philosophy of the unborn contributes to both academic scholarship and political life by problematizing what virtues ought to govern laws and policies on the unborn. Discussions imply that the connection between the contested embryonic or fetal body and political philosophy gathers a variety of deep and important questions, which justifies an intellectual and practical pursuit.

Author Biography

Aireen Grace T. Andal, Ural Federal University, Yekaterinburg, Russia

Aireen Grace T. Andal is a PhD student and junior researcher at the Centre for Comparative Studies of Toleration and Recognition at Ural Federal University. She has a bachelor’s degree in sociology in the University of the Philippines. Her current research interests are in the fields of bioethics, identity politics, international relations and urban spaces. She also serves as a member of the 2020 Editorial Board of Dialogic Pedagogy Journal.

References


  • Addelson, K. P. (1999). The Emergence of the Fetus. In L. Morgan & M. Michaels (Eds.), Fetal Subjects, Feminist Positions (pp. 26–42). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

  • Agar, N. (2004). Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

  • Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Baertschi, B. (2014) Neuromodulation in the Service of Moral Enhancement. Brain Topography, 27, 63–71. DOI: 10.1007/s10548-012-0273-7

  • de Beauvoir, S. (1949/2010). The Second Sex. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

  • Benn, S. (1973). Abortion, Infanticide, and Respect for Persons. In J. Feinberg (Ed.), The Problem of Abortion (pp. 92–104). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

  • Boldizar, A., & Korhonen, O. (1999). Ethics, Morals and International Law. European Journal of International Law, 10(2), 279–311. DOI: 10.1093/ejil/10.2.279

  • Boonin, D. (2003). A Defense of Abortion. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Brown, D. (1991). Human Universals. New York: McGraw-Hill.

  • Buchanan, A., Brock, D. W., Daniels, N., & Wikler, D. (2000). From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Buckle, S. (1988). Arguing from Potential. Bioethics, 2(3), 227–253. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.1988.tb00050.x

  • Burda, M. (2009). Understanding a Woman’s Moral Obligation to her Fetus: Maternal-Fetal Conflict as a Covenant Relationship (Doctoral dissertation). Duquesne University, Pennsylvania, United States. Retrieved from https://dsc.duq.edu/etd/363

  • Bybee, J., & Fleischman, S. (Eds.). (1995). Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Cannon, W. (1941, January 03). The Body Physiologic and the Body Politic. Science, 93(2401), 1–10. DOI: 10.1126/science.93.2401.1

  • Carlson, E. A. (2001). The Unfit: A History of a Bad Idea. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.

  • Dawson, K. & Singer, P. (1990). Should Fertile People Have Access to in Vitro Fertilisation? British Medical Journal, 300 (6718), 167–170. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.300.6718.167

  • Engelhardt, Jr. H. T. (1986). The Foundations of Bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • English, J. (1975). Abortion and the Concept of a Person. In S. Scalet & J. Arthur (Eds.), Morality and Moral Controversies: Readings in Moral, Social and Political Controversies (pp. 282–288). New York: Routledge.

  • Finn, S. (2018). The Metaphysics of Surrogacy. In D. Boonin (Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Philosophy and Public Policy (pp. 649–659). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

  • Fukuyama, F. (2002). Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

  • Gilbert, S. F., & Tauber, A. I. (2016). Rethinking Individuality: The Dialectics of the Holobiont. Biology and Philosophy, 31, 839–853. DOI: 10.1007/s10539-016-9541-3

  • Gillon, R. (1985). Philosophical Medical Ethics. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.

  • Grosz, E. (1994). Volatile Bodies: Toward a Corporeal Feminism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

  • Harris, J. (2007). Enhancing Evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  • Haaf, L. (2016). Future Persons and Legal Persons: The Problematic Representation of the Future Child in the Regulation of Reproduction. Laws MDPI, 5(1), 10. DOI: 10.3390/laws5010010

  • Haaf, L. (2017). Unborn and Future Children as New Legal Subjects: An Evaluation of Two Subject-Oriented Approaches – The Subject of Rights and the Subject of Interests. German Law Journal, 18(5), 1091–1119. DOI: 10.1017/S2071832200022264

  • Johnsen, D. (1986). The Creation of Fetal Rights: Conflicts with Women’s Constitutional Rights to Liberty, Privacy, and Equal Protection. Yale Law Journal, 95, 599–625. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6983&context=ylj

  • Kevles, D. J. (1985). In the Name of Eugenics. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

  • Leder, D. (1990). The Absent Body. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Manninen, B. (2007/2014). Revisiting the Argument from Fetal Potential. In J. Lizza (Ed.), Potentiality: Metaphysical and Bioethical Dimensions (pp. 191–222). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

  • Mehlman, M. J., & Botkin, J. (1998). Access to the Genome: The Challenge to Equality. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

  • Mikhail, J. (2002). Law, Science, and Morality: a Review of Richard Posner’s “The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory”. Stanford Law Review, 54(5), 1057–1127. DOI: 10.2307/1229693

  • Montagu, D., Sudhinaraset, M., Diamond-Smith, N., Campbell, O., Gabrysch, S., Freedman, L., Kruk, M. E., & Donnay, F. (2017). Where Women go to Deliver: Understanding the Changing Landscape of Childbirth in Africa and Asia. Health Policy and Planning, 32(8), 1146–1152. DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czx060

  • Murphy, S., & Rosenbaum, M. (1999). Pregnant Women on Drugs: Combating Stereotypes and Stigma. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

  • Nagel, T. (1970). Death. Nous, 4(1), 73–80. DOI: 10.2307/2214297

  • Nedermann, C. J. (Ed.). (1992). Medieval Political Thought – A Reader: The Quest for the Body Politic. London and New York: Routledge.

  • Nelkin, D., & Lindee, M. S. (1996). The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon. New York: W. H. Freeman.

  • Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.

  • Ochsner, R. (1979). A Poetics of Second Language Acquisition. Language Learning, 29(1), 53–80. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1979.tb01052.x

  • Ojala, M., & Lidskog, R. (2011). What Lies Beneath the Surface? A Case Study of Citizens’ Moral Reasoning with Regard to Biodiversity. Environmental Values, 20(2), 217–237. DOI: 10.3197/096327111X12997574391760

  • Parens, E. (2013). On Good and Bad Forms of Medicalization. Bioethics, 27(1), 28–35. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01885.x

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.

  • Savulescu, J. (2001). Procreative Beneficence: Why we Should Select the Best Children. Bioethics, 15(5–6), 413–426. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8519.00251

  • Selgelid, M. J. (2014). Moderate Eugenics and Human Enhancement. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 17, 3–12. DOI: 10.1007/s11019-013-9485-1

  • Simić, J. (2018). The Protection of Nasciturus Within the Civil Law. Pravni Zapisi, 9(2), 255–270. DOI: 10.5937/pravzap0-19193

  • Smith, G. P. (1989). Fetal Abuse: Culpable Behavior by Pregnant Women or Parental Immunity. Journal of Law and Health, 3(2), 223–235. Retrieved from https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1383&context=jlh

  • Smith, B., & Brogaard, B. (2003). Sixteen Days. Journal of Medical Philosophy, 28(1), 45–47. DOI: 10.1076/jmep.28.1.45.14172

  • Smith, P. (2002). The Rescue Narrative in Social Theory. Thesis Eleven, 70(1), 104–112. DOI: 10.1177/0725513602070001011

  • The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee. (2016). Committee Opinion, No. 664: 1–8. Retrieved from https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2016/06/refusal-of-medicallyrecommended-treatment-during-pregnancy

  • Williams, J. R. (2015). Medical Ethics Manual (3rd ed.). Ferney-Voltaire: The World Medical Association. Retrieved from https://www.wma.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Ethics_manual_3rd_Nov2015_en.pdf

Published
2020-04-10
How to Cite
Andal, A. (2020). Flesh of the Unborn: On the Political Philosophy of the Unborn. Changing Societies & Personalities, 4(1), 53–67. doi:10.15826/csp.2020.4.1.089
Citation Formats
Issue
Vol. 4, No. 1 (2020)
Section
Articles