Article Text
Statistics from Altmetric.com
In her paper, Robinson asserts that if one is convinced by the arguments assigning personhood according to a threshold criterion, one should also be open to the potential for a secondary personhood threshold, satisfied when one is pregnant, which confers temporary enhanced moral status. Rather than grounding such a claim on a fetus’s possession, or lack thereof, of personhood, Robinson argues that the pregnant person’s status as a ‘unique being’ is enough to satisfy the requirements of such an additional personhood classification.1 She justifies her claim via three arguments: (1) that the pregnant person is, in fact, more than a singular individual; (2) that pregnant people play a critical role in the human race’s continuation and (3) that the significant harms and burdens to which pregnant people have been exposed to historically and contemporary requires counterbalancing with enhanced protections. Unfortunately, despite Robinson’s best efforts, she does not provide a robust foundation for these justifications, which is most notable with the second one.
According to Robinson, because pregnant people’s critical role within society of gestating new individuals …
Footnotes
Contributors RBG contributed 100% of this work.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Pregnancy and superior moral status: a proposal for two thresholds of personhood
- Dotting the I's and crossing the T's: autonomy and/or beneficence? The ‘fetus as a patient’ in maternal–fetal surgery
- Infanticide and moral consistency
- Fetuses, newborns, & parental responsibility
- Challenging the principle of proportionality
- Defending the distinction between pregnancy and parenthood
- In defence of gestatelings: response to Colgrove
- Clinicians’ criteria for fetal moral status: viability and relationality, not sentience
- Parental responsibilities and moral status
- Why two arguments from probability fail and one argument from Thomson’s analogy of the violinist succeeds in justifying embryo destruction in some situations