Construction vs. development: polarizing models of human gestation.

This essay argues that the polarization of our public debate over embryo-destructive research may be due, to a large extent, not to different valuations of individual human life but to different conceptions of the process of gestation, with one group treating the process as a making or construction and the other treating it as a development. These two incompatible models of reproduction are shown to explain the various positions commonly encountered in this debate over the treatment of embryos, and to a significant degree those encountered in the debate over abortion as well. Finally, the historical, theoretical, and intuitive strengths of each model are examined.

[Construction vs. development: the source of our misunderstandings concerning the beginning of life].

This essay argues that the failure of our public debates over abortion and embryo-destructive research is due, to a large extent, not to different valuation of individual human life but to different conceptions and intuitions concerning the process of gestation, one group treating the process as construction and another treating it as development. These two incompatible models of reproduction are shown to explain the various positions commonly encountered in these life-related debates. Finally, the historical, theoretical, and intuitive strengths of each model are examined.