Pregnancy is a one of the most complex phenomena of life and is essential to the life cycle of mammals. Pregnancy is also a crucial aspect of humans’ life and experience. But what is pregnancy? This question has received little attention in philosophy until recently, when it got picked up by metaphysicians and philosophers of science. However, the philosophical discussion is still in its infancy. This article provides a survey of the recent debate on the metaphysics of pregnancy. It explores (...) the relation between the pregnant organism and the gestated one, motivating the further study of pregnancy from a philosophical perspective (§1, §2). It summarises the three main models of pregnancy present in the literature, the containment view (§3), the parthood view (§4) and the splitting process view (§5) with their advantages and shortcomings. Then, it explores a recent debate on whether pregnancy is a disease (§6). Lastly, it considers how one can decide between these models, for instance by favouring a given view of biological individuality over another (§7). The article concludes that none of the views is fully satisfactory, and thus inviting to continue the research on pregnancy from a metaphysical and philosophical perspective. (shrink)

Do pregnant mothers have fetuses as parts? According to the “parthood view” they do, while according to the “containment view” they don’t. This paper raises a novel puzzle about pregnancy: if mothers have their fetuses as parts, then wherever there is a pregnant mother, there is also a smaller thinking being that has every part of the mother except for those that overlap with the fetus. This problem resembles a familiar overpopulation puzzle from the personal identity literature, known as the (...) “Thinking Parts Problem”, but it’s not merely a special case of that problem. Rather, the fact that late-term fetuses have a mental life of their own makes the Problem of Pregnant Thinkers, as I will call it, a sui generis and especially recalcitrant problem. (shrink)

Given Descartes’ metaphysical and natural-philosophic commitments, it is very difficult to theorize the pregnant human being as a human being under his system. Specifically, given (1) Descartes’ account of generation, (2) his commitment to mechanistic explanations where bodies are concerned, (3) his reliance on a subtle individuating principle for human (and animal) bodies, and (4) his metaphysics of human beings, which include minds, bodies, and mind-body unions, there is no available human substance or entity which may clearly be the subject (...) of pregnancy. The incompatibility of any of the three options found in (4) with (1), (2), or (3), together with other undesirable consequences should any be selected, results in what I call the pregnancy problem. The pregnancy problem (henceforth, PP) is a previously unconsidered problem for the Cartesian philosophy. Given PP, commitment(s) (1), (2), (3) or (4), or a combination of these, would have to be revised for Descartes’ system to avoid a variety of tensions; alternately, counterintuitive consequences may have to be accepted. Ironically, given Descartes’ interest in generation and medicine more generally, the Cartesian framework struggles to accommodate pregnancy in human beings. This may have implications for the systematicity and sex-neutrality of dualist metaphysics in general. (shrink)

The ‘containment view’ of pregnancy is widely held, but it has recently been subjected to sustained criticism by Elselijn Kingma. According to the containment view, human foetuses (among others) are animals in their own right, contained within their mothers. Kingma's alternative to this is the ‘parthood view,’ according to which a foetus is a maternal part. Despite the prevalence of the containment view, there are not a great many arguments in its favour, and Kingma has searchingly criticized several of these. (...) In this paper, I defend an argument for the containment view, which I think is not undermined by Kingma-type considerations. (shrink)