Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 10
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Ford, N.M. 2012. Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics.


    Lara, Francisco 2012. Should we sacrifice embryos to cure people?. Human Affairs, Vol. 22, Issue. 4,


    2011. Common Knowledge.


    Eberl, Jason T. 2009. Advancing the Case for Organ Procurement. The American Journal of Bioethics, Vol. 9, Issue. 8, p. 22.


    Sparrow, R. 2009. Therapeutic Cloning and Reproductive Liberty. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, Vol. 34, Issue. 2, p. 102.


    DEVOLDER, KATRIEN and HARRIS, JOHN 2007. THE AMBIGUITY OF THE EMBRYO: ETHICAL INCONSISTENCY IN THE HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL DEBATE. Metaphilosophy, Vol. 38, Issue. 2-3, p. 153.


    Lott, Jason P. and Savulescu, Julian 2007. Towards a Global Human Embryonic Stem Cell Bank. The American Journal of Bioethics, Vol. 7, Issue. 8, p. 37.


    Wynn, L.L. Erdman, Joanna N. Foster, Angel M. and Trussell, James 2007. Harm Reduction or Women's Rights? Debating Access to Emergency Contraceptive Pills in Canada and the United States. Studies in Family Planning, Vol. 38, Issue. 4, p. 253.


    Holm, Søren 2006. Are countries that ban human embryonic stem cell research hypocritical?. Regenerative Medicine, Vol. 1, Issue. 3, p. 357.


    Devolder, Katrien and Harris, John 2005. Philosophical Reflections on Medical Ethics.


    ×
  • Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, Volume 12, Issue 4
  • October 2003, pp. 353-371

Stem Cells, Sex, and Procreation

  • JOHN HARRIS (a1)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S096318010312405X
  • Published online: 01 October 2003
Abstract

Sex is not the answer to everything, though young men think it is, but it may be the answer to the intractable debate over the ethics of human embryonic stem cell research. In this paper, I advance one ethical principle that, as yet, has not received the attention its platitudinous character would seem to merit. If found acceptable, this principle would permit the beneficial use of any embryonic or fetal tissue that would, by default, be lost or destroyed. More important, I make two appeals to consistency, or to parity of reasoning, that I believe show that no one who either has used or intends to use sexual reproduction as their means of procreation, nor indeed anyone who has unprotected heterosexual intercourse, nor anyone who finds in vitro fertilization (IVF) acceptable, nor anyone who believes that abortion is ever permissible can consistently object on principle to human embryo research nor to the use of embryonic stem cells for research or therapy.

Copyright
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
  • ISSN: 0963-1801
  • EISSN: 1469-2147
  • URL: /core/journals/cambridge-quarterly-of-healthcare-ethics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×