Skip to main content

The Ontological Status of Pre-implantation Embryos

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Philosophy and Medicine ((CSBE,volume 127))

Abstract

Contemporary embryology indicates that the moment of fertilization gives rise to a discrete human organism within a relatively short time-frame. Yet, it is difficult to determine the precise ontological status of the early conceptus. Biological data alone can neither reveal the metaphysical status of nascent human beings, nor does it denote the ethical implications of their organismal identity. One must not confuse biological, metaphysical and moral categories, but rather differentiate between the ontological identity and the moral status of embryos. A challenge for determining the ontological status of the pre-implantation embryo is the possibility of twinning or organismal division, or the recombination of twins to form a chimera. Whether monozygotic or embryonic twinning is due to external factors or is determined intrinsically at fertilization is unclear. Even the influence of epigenetic factors during development, which is sometimes cited as evidence of the incomplete nature of the embryo, presupposes a certain ontological identity. Additionally, the identity of the zygote, morula, and blastocyst embraces a potentiality that eventuates in embodied personhood, provided no extrinsic factors alter normal biological development. This requires the use of philosophical arguments to distinguish the power-to-produce from the power-to-become a psychologically mature and active social “person.” For all intents and purposes, there is a biological continuum stretching from the single-celled zygote to the infant human being. This ontological continuity seems to insinuate that the pre-implantation embryo is a viable human being that deserves the protection accorded to members of the genus Homo sapiens.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    There is a vast array of successive epigenetic modifications that occur during normal embryonic development. Most of these alterations involve the reprogramming of gene expression, where molecular pathways that modulate the expression of the embryo’s genotype affect phenotype. Any disturbance of the normal environment during critical phases of embryogenesis can cause epigenetic changes, and such alterations may be more common in cases where human assisted reproductive technology is employed. These epigenetic changes form barriers to ensure that cell type specification is unidirectional and modifications are stable through mitosis, allowing for a directed differentiation process.

References

  • Ashley, Benedict. 1976. A critique of the theory of delayed hominization. In An ethical evaluation of fetal experimentation: An interdisciplinary study, ed. Donald G. McCarthy and Albert S. Moraczewski, 115–129. St. Louis: Pope John XXIII Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, Benedict, and Albert Moraczewski. 2001. Cloning, Aquinas, and the embryonic person. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 1: 189–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austriaco, Nicanor Pier Giorgio. 2011. Biomedicine and beatitude: An introduction to Catholic bioethics. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baertschi, Bernard. 2008. The question of the embryo’s moral status. Bioethics Forum 1: 76–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, Tom L. 1999. The failure of theories of personhood. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 9: 309–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckwith, Francis J. 2001. Abortion, bioethics, and personhood: A philosophical reflection. The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity Commentary. www.cbhd.org/resources/bioethics. Accessed 14 June 2016.

  • Brown, Mark T. 2007. The potential of the human embryo. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32: 585–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckle, Stephen. 1988. Arguing from potential. Bioethics 2: 227–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cahill, Lisa Sowle. 2005. Theological bioethics: Participation, justice, and change. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, David J. 1996. The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohnitz, Daniel, and Barry Smith. 2002. Assessing ontologies: The question of human origins and its ethical significance. In Persons: An interdisciplinary approach, ed. Christian Kanzian, Josef Quitterer, and Edmund Runggaldier, 243–268. Vienna: Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Condic, Maureen L. 2011. Preimplantation stages of human development: The biological and moral status of early embryos. In Is this cell a human being? Exploring the status of embryos, stem cells, and human–animal hybrids, ed. Antoine Suarez and Joachim Huarte, 25–43. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, Conor. 2007. Trying my very best to believe Darwin, or the supernaturalist fallacy, from is to naught. In Belief and metaphysics, ed. Conor Cunningham and Peter M. Chandler, 110–141. London: SCM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeGrazia, David. 2005. Human identity and bioethics, 244–254. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eberl, Jason T. 2006. Thomistic principles and bioethics. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberl, Jason T., and Brandon P. Brown. 2011. Brain life and the argument from potential: Affirming the ontological status of human embryos and fetuses. In Persons, moral worth, and embryos: A critical analysis of pro-choice arguments, ed. Stephen Napier, 43–66. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fastiggi, Robert. 2008. Review of “The human embryo research debates”. The Linacre Quarterly 75: 87–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, Joel. 1984. Harm to others: The moral limits of the criminal law. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, Norman M. 1988. When did I begin? Conception of the human individual in history, philosophy, and science, 132–163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2002. The prenatal person: Ethics from conception to birth. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • George, Robert P., and Christopher Tollefsen. 2008. Embryo. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, Scott F. 2006. Developmental biology. 8th ed, 187–192. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, Ronald M. 2001. The human embryo research debates: Bioethics in the vortex of controversy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauerwas, Stanley. 2012. Must a patient be a person to be a patient? Or, my uncle Charlie is not much of a person but he is still my uncle Charlie. In On moral medicine: Theological perspective in medical ethics, ed. M. Therese Lysaught, Joseph Kotva, Stephen E. Lammers, and Allen Verhey, 352–366. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hershenov, David, and Rose Koch-Hershenov. 2006. Fission and confusion. Christian Bioethics 12: 237–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Mark. 1995. Delayed hominization: Reflections on some recent Catholic claims for delayed hominization. Theological Studies 56: 743–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1997. Quaestio disputata: Delayed hominization – A rejoinder to Thomas Shannon. Theological Studies 58: 708–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaczor, Christopher R. 2005. The edge of life: Human dignity and contemporary bioethics. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, Immanuel. 1993. Grounding for the metaphysics of morals. 3rd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khushf, George. 1997. Embryo research: The ethical geography of the debate. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22: 495–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, Anthony. 2008. The beginning of individual human life. In Stem cells, human embryos and ethics, ed. Lars Østnor, 167–175. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Koch-Hershenov, Rose. 2006. Totipotency, twinning, and ensoulment at fertilization. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31: 139–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kretzmann, Norman. 1999. The metaphysics of creation: Aquinas’ natural theology in Summa contra gentiles II. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhse, Helga, and Peter Singer. 1985. Should the baby live?: The problem of handicapped infants. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laing, Jacqueline A. 2013. Infanticide: A reply to Giubilini and Minerva. Journal of Medical Ethics 39: 336–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Patrick, Christopher Tollefsen, and Robert P. George. 2014. The ontological status of embryos: A reply to Jason Morris. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39: 483–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, John. 1996. In An essay concerning human understanding, ed. Kenneth P. Winkler. Indianapolis: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, Matthew. 2014. The ontogenesis of the human person: A neo-Aristotelian view. University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy 8: 96–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macfarlan, Todd S., Wesley D. Gifford, Shawn Driscoll, Karen Lettieri, Helen M. Rowe, Dario Bonanomi, Amy Firth, Oded Singer, Didier Trono and Samuel L. Pfaff. 2012. Embryonic stem cell potency fluctuates with endogenous retrovirus activity. Nature 487: 57–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manninen, Bertha Alvarez. 2007. Revisiting the argument from fetal potential. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2. http://www.peh-med.com/content/2/1/7. Accessed 14 June 2016.

  • ———. 2009. The metaphysical foundations of reproductive ethics. Applied Philosophy 26: 190–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquis, Don. 1989. Why abortion is immoral. Journal of Philosophy 86: 183–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, William E. 1976. What makes a human being to be a being of moral worth? The Thomist 40: 416–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1996. The sacredness of life: An overview of the beginning. The Linacre Quarterly 63: 87–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Tom. 2012. The folly of attributional personhood. Ethics in Brief 18: 1–4. http://www.klice.co.uk. Accessed 14 June 2016.

  • Moore, Keith L. 1988, Marlene Herbst, Megan Thompson. Essentials of human embryology. Toronto/Philadelphia: B. C. Deker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, Lynn M. 2013. The potentiality principle from Aristotle to abortion. Current Anthropology 54 (Suppl. 7): S15–S25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgani, Sophie M., Maurice A. Canham, Jennifer Nichols, Alexei A. Sharov, Rosa Portero Migueles, Minoru S.H. Ko, Joshua M. Brickman. 2013. Totipotent embryonic stem cells arise in ground-state culture conditions. Cell Reports 3: 1945–1957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, Jason. 2012. Substance ontology cannot determine the moral status of embryos. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 37: 331–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munthe, Christian. 2001. Divisibility and the moral status of embryos. Bioethics 15: 382–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, Thomas. 1986. The view from nowhere. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nothias, Jean-Yves, Sadhan Majumder, Kotaro J. Kaneko, and Melvin L. DePamphilis. 1995. Regulation of gene expression at the beginning of mammalian development. Journal of Biological Chemistry 207: 22077–22080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oderberg, David S. 2008. The metaphysical status of the embryo: Some arguments revisited. Journal of Applied Philosophy. 25: 263–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, Eric T. 1997. The human animal: Personal identity without psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palini, Simone, Silvia De Stefani, Valentina Scala, Ludovica Dusi, and Carlo Bulletti. 2011. Epigenetic regulatory mechanisms during preimplantation embryo development. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1221: 54–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasnau, Robert. 2002. Thomas Aquinas on human nature. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, John. 1999. The dilemma of materialism. International Philosophical Quarterly 39: 429–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, Jean. 1995. Individuality, personal identity, and the moral status of the preembryo: A response to Mark Johnson. Theological Studies 56: 763–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Requena Meana, Pablo. 2011. On the status of human embryos and cellular entities produced through ANT: Are they persons? In Is this cell a human being? Exploring the status of embryos, stem cells, and human–animal hybrids, ed. Antoine Suarez and Joachim Huarte, 97–115. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shoemaker, Sydney. 2008. Persons, animals, and identity. Synthese 163: 313–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, Aaron. 2012. Do embryos have interests? Why embryos are identical to future persons but not harmed by death. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 9: 57–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, Peter. 1979. Practical ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. Speciesism and moral status. Metaphilosophy 40: 567–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinbock, Bonnie. 2006. The morality of killing human embryos. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 34: 26–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stump, Eleonore. 2010. Wandering in darkness: Narrative and the problem of suffering. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tauer, Carol. 1984. The tradition of probabilism and the moral status of the early embryo. Theological Studies 45: 3–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1997. Embryo research and public policy: A philosopher’s appraisal. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22: 423–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, Judith Jarvis. 1971. A defense of abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1: 47–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tooley, Michael. 1973. A defense of abortion and infanticide. In The problem of abortion, ed. Joel Feinberg, 51–91. Belmont: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tøth, Szabolcs, Daniel Huneau, Bernadette Banrezes, and Jean-Paul Ozil. 2006. Egg activation is the result of calcium signal summation in the mouse. Reproduction 131: 27–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitthala, S., T.A. Gelbaya, D.R. Brison, C.T. Fizgerald, L.G. Nardo. 2009. The risk of monozygotic twins after assisted reproductive technology: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Human Reproduction Update 15: 45–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warnock, Mary. 1984. A question of life: The Warnock report. London: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, Mary Anne. 1988. On the moral and legal status of abortion. In Morality in practice, ed. James P. Sterba, 159–169. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John R. Meyer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Meyer, J.R. (2017). The Ontological Status of Pre-implantation Embryos. In: Eberl, J. (eds) Contemporary Controversies in Catholic Bioethics. Philosophy and Medicine(), vol 127. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55766-3_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics