↓ Skip to main content

Revisiting the argument from fetal potential

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#13 of 203)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
41 tweeters
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Revisiting the argument from fetal potential
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2007
DOI 10.1186/1747-5341-2-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bertha Manninen

Abstract

One of the most famous, and most derided, arguments against the morality of abortion is the argument from potential, which maintains that the fetus' potential to become a person and enjoy the valuable life common to persons, entails that its destruction is prima facie morally impermissible. In this paper, I will revisit and offer a defense of the argument from potential.First, I will criticize the classical arguments proffered against the importance of fetal potential, specifically the arguments put forth by philosophers Peter Singer and David Boonin, by carefully unpacking the claims made in these arguments and illustrating why they are flawed.Secondly, I will maintain that fetal potential is morally relevant when it comes to the morality of abortion, but that it must be accorded a proper place in the argument. This proper place, however, cannot be found until we first answer a very important and complex question: we must first address the issue of personal identity, and when the fetus becomes the type of being who is relevantly identical to a future person. I will illustrate why the question of fetal potential can only be meaningfully addressed after we have first answered the question of personal identity and how it relates to the human fetus.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 7%
Unknown 14 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 27%
Student > Bachelor 3 20%
Other 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 13%
Social Sciences 2 13%
Philosophy 1 7%
Other 3 20%
Unknown 2 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 October 2021.
All research outputs
#597,742
of 19,172,905 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#13
of 203 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,311
of 142,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,172,905 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 203 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 142,678 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them