Researcher ORCID Identifier

0009-0000-9412-7528

Graduation Year

2025

Date of Submission

12-2024

Document Type

Campus Only Senior Thesis

Degree Name

Bachelor of Arts

Department

Philosophy and Public Affairs

Second Department

Philosophy

Reader 1

Alex Rajczi

Terms of Use & License Information

Terms of Use for work posted in Scholarship@Claremont.

Rights Information

2024 Julia K Mehlman

Abstract

This thesis works to expand the discussion of the moral inconsistency between opposing abortions under a full moral value stance (FMV) while supporting parent-friendly IVF practices. I broaden this discussion by turning to circumstantial, rather than moral, justifications for protections. Ultimately, I argue that children deserve heightened protections, justified by their circumstances; these circumstantial justifications serve as a potential avenue for justifying heightened protections for fetuses but not embryos.

The first two-thirds of this thesis delves into the moral inconsistency. Analyzing Joshua Shaw’s Surplus Embryos and Abortion, I argue that Shaw’s definition of the inconsistency is correct and that alleviation entails meeting the four conditions Shaw describes. Through James Delaney’s Embryo Loss and Moral Status, I determine that different reactions to the deaths of embryos versus children are consistent with FMV. Since psychological, not moral, reasons drive these reactions, they do not negate the fact that they hold an FMV.

Finally, I claim that children deserve heightened protections on the grounds of circumstance rather than inherent value. Moreover, it is not morally inconsistent to propose heightened protections for one and not another even when they are equally morally valuable. I look at (1) age, (2) viability and fetal development, (3) human potential, (4) naturalness, and (5) emotional attachments creating obligations as potential arguments for circumstantially heightened protections for fetuses. If successful, this could alleviate the inconsistency. I determine that none of them are sufficient justifications. Since these justifications fail, the moral inconsistency remains.

This thesis is restricted to the Claremont Colleges current faculty, students, and staff.

Share

COinS