HUMANA.MENTE Journal of Philosophical Studies

Introduction

Matteo Galletti — 2024-12-27

The End of Human Reproduction?

Anna Smajdor — 2024-12-27

The pessimistic Norwegian philosopher, Peter Zapffe, argues that human consciousness exposes us to the brutal meaninglessness of our existence. We therefore attempt to anaesthetise ourselves so that we are rarely forced to experience what Zapffe describes as ‘cosmic panic’. Zapffe lists four techniques by which we seek to achieve this: isolation, anchoring, distraction and sublimation. Though we rely heavily on these techniques, Zapffe believes they offer a limited protective value. Zapffe regarded women as being less susceptible to ‘cosmic panic’ because they are “…in general less cognition-prone and hence more secure in their living than men”. In this paper, I show that reproduction has served to fulfil a powerful anchoring and distraction strategy for the avoidance of the kind of horror that Zapffe discusses. Once we achieve gender equality so that women are freed from the shackles of uncontrolled fertility, we may be better able to recognise women’s accounts of their pessimism and despair. But not only does this free up half of our species’ members to join in the collective despair, it threatens the status of reproduction itself as one of our most effective anchoring and distraction techniques.

A Brave New World? Pronatalism and the Future of Reproductive Technologies

Yong Lee Ji — 2024-12-27

Feminist bioethicists hope for assisted reproductive technologies (ART) to be deployed for emancipatory ends. Funding, liberalization, and non-discriminatory ART access are considered actionable ways to service emancipatory goals that may benefit all aspiring parents. In this paper, however, I will explicate a growing, global threat to the fulfilment of emancipatory ideals in ART practice despite such steps: an uptick of institutionalized pronatalism(s) which situate low fertility as a site of demographic disaster, and which consequently position primarily women’s bodies as both its cause and solution. Under such conditions, ARTs are at risk of being co-opted for harmful and oppressive demographic designs, rather than for emancipatory ends.

From Covid 19 Pandemic to Germline Genome Editing

Maurizio Balistreri — 2024-10-22

This text explores the intricate relationship between personal autonomy and public health objectives, particularly accentuated during the recent pandemic. Emphasising the challenge of balancing individual autonomy with broader public health imperatives, the discussion delves into state interventions that may restrict individual freedom and the potential moral justifications behind such actions. Public health interventions, encompassing various policies from data collection to preventive legislation, are examined in light of their impact on individual freedom. Drawing on Holland’s analysis, the text illustrates how these policies may limit individual autonomy while serving the interests and welfare of society. It argues that, in a liberal society, restrictions on citizen choices are justified not only for individual health but also to safeguard collective interests. The recent COVID-19 response, including measures like lockdowns and vaccine passports, exemplifies this evolving balance. The text contends that, as the state places more emphasis on public health over personal autonomy, interventions like genome editing might cease to be considered mere options, potentially leading to mandatory genetic modifications for those desiring children. This shift raises ethical questions about protecting individual autonomy in a diverse society. The text highlights the absence of compelling justifications against restricting individuals from making autonomous decisions about their children’s genetic makeup or imposing legal obligations for genome editing.

Is Germline Genome Editing Identity-affecting?

Sergio Filippo Magni — 2024-12-27

This article deals with the contentious problem whether He Jiankui’s GGE is an identity-affecting action and therefore whether it arises the non-identity problem. Differently from some leading authors in current debate, the author argues that GGE cannot be considered an identity-affecting intervention because it does not produce an unavoidable bad effect and does not eliminate the time gap between selection and modification, which could allow the doctor to change his mind and not modify the selected embryos.

(Re)producing Identities: The Assumptions in (non)Identity-Affecting Debates

Oliver Feeney — 2024-12-27

Advances in procreative technologies can entail changes on a number of levels: changing scientific realities but also changing ethical considerations, and changes to the concepts they use or assumptions that some ethical arguments rely upon. One such case has been how the move from the idea of selection to the idea of gene editing can affect arguments around what it is meant to benefit or harm the future offspring. With help of the recent framework of Ying‑Qi Liaw (2024), as well as insights from Rosemarie Garland-Thomson (2019), we question the assumptions of ‘identity’ and ‘disability’ that are often used in ‘person-affecting identity preserving (gene editing)’ versus ‘non-person affecting identity changing (selection)’ debates (McMahan & Savulescu 2023). In so doing, we recognise that there is an additional ‘person-affecting, yet identity changing’ category emerging, when the trait changed or corrected is itself definitive of the identity in important respects. From this, we also explore how such debates have an echo of genetic determinism about them, and the appreciation of our social, environmental identity makes for a much more complex discussion than such debates initially suggest. Consequentially, we suggest moving beyond the narrow confines of such debates to one about the ways identities can be seen to be generated in positive (or negative) ways, rather than a concern about whether some identities are preserved or changed, for the better or worse.

A Right to be Born 'As Is'

Paul Turner — 2024-12-27

The prospect of gene editing use for future populations may not be imminent, but the permissible use is gathering speed. Advanced understanding of the human genome, gene editing tools, and the procedures for potentially life-changing applications are challenging prevailing norms. As a result, our obligations towards future generations may be augmented by advances in biomedicine. However, some opponents to germline editing believe the problem lays wider than only the benefits that could arise from editing. A composite of the opposing views of Sandel (2007), Fukuyama (2002), and Habermas (2003) suggest that editing creates a seismic sinkhole in society where vanity takes over, we abuse the natural order, and create a new breed of humans who lack basic human attributes like being self-critical. A way to remedy this problem is to develop a right to be born ‘as is’. The right to be born ‘as is’ suggests that humanity is served through the genes and an untampered gene from conception must be protected for the needs of human societies, species, and the rights of the individual. I argue that there is an intuitive basis for this type of right but that it struggles on the weight of other rights and the interests of future societies. Aspects of the right could be salvaged but the prospect that future generations be edited for their protection must remain open as an option for present generations.

Three-Parent Babies and Mitochondrial Replacement Techniques. An Institutional View of Moral Parenthood

Matteo Galletti — 2024-12-27

In this paper, I address the philosophical consistency of the term “three-parent babies,” which is often used to describe children born through mitochondrial replacement therapy. I will argue that two primary arguments, based respectively on identity and causality, fail to exclude egg donors as candidates as moral parents due to their essential contribution to the child's existence (moral parenthood encompasses a set of rights and responsibilities that are not directly regulated by a legal system). Finally, I shall show how the potential extension of parental status to donors is conceivable, relying on the concept of “investment” in the procreative dynamic, and a conventional and institutional conception of parenthood.

Surrogacy, Contract and Labor. Normative Issues Surrounding the Right to Self-Ownership and to Property in the Body

Silvia Zullo — 2024-12-27

This analysis aims to address key normative and critical issues concerning the right to surrogacy as it relates to self-ownership and bodily property rights. Surrogacy remains a contentious choice, expanding possibilities for women as both workers and mothers. Additionally, issues of gender, self-ownership, and exploitation, which were central topics for feminists in the 1980s and 1990s, remain highly relevant today. Specifically, in the first part, I will examine the limitations of the liberal property model that views individuals as property-holders with the right to do as they please with their own bodies and body parts. This issue arises within the current ethical-legal framework that questions whether people can legitimately be regarded as owners of their bodies and parts. In this context, in the second part I will argue that in a liberal democratic society, the right to surrogacy is better understood as a contractual right and a right to freedom of occupational choice, rather than being tied to the right to self-ownership and property rights.