Article info
PDFReproductive ethics
Paper
Morally relevant potential
- Correspondence to Dr David B Hershenov, Philosophy Department, 135 Park Hall, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA; dh25{at}buffalo.edu
Citation
Morally relevant potential
Publication history
- Received December 21, 2012
- Revised January 22, 2014
- Accepted February 3, 2014
- First published February 25, 2014.
Online issue publication
April 27, 2016
Article Versions
- Previous version (27 April 2016).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions
Other content recommended for you
- Infanticide and moral consistency
- Why two arguments from probability fail and one argument from Thomson’s analogy of the violinist succeeds in justifying embryo destruction in some situations
- Human embryonic stem cell research debates: a Confucian argument
- Fetuses, newborns, & parental responsibility
- The common premise for uncommon conclusions
- Dilemma for appeals to the moral significance of birth
- Parental responsibilities and moral status
- Are those who subscribe to the view that early embryos are persons irrational and inconsistent? A reply to Brock
- Birth, meaningful viability and abortion
- In defence of gestatelings: response to Colgrove