In this paper I argue that teleology and a proper teleological analysis of the uterus is important for a comprehensive understanding of the rights of the unborn. I argue that a right to life entails the right to use those organs that naturally function for an individual’s survival. Consequently, an unborn child has a right to his mother’s uterus. If this is accepted, bodily-rights arguments for abortion such as those proposed by Judith Jarvis Thomson and David Boonin are completely undermined. (...) While Thomson and Boonin may be justified in arguing the right to life does not always entail the right to use another person’s body, I argue that the right to life of the unborn does entail the right to use their mother’s body. (shrink)

In this paper, I will argue that heterologous embryo transfer (HET) is malum in se because it involves a disordered use of a woman’s gestative faculty. Against most HET opponents, I will argue for and defend the distinction between the generative faculty or procreation and the gestative faculty or gestation, grounded in St. Thomas Aquinas’s explanation for how faculties are distinguished. Against the advocates of HET, I will argue that a thorough analysis of the gestative faculty and its natural object (...) will help us to demonstrate why HET constitutes a disordered (and therefore illicit) use of a woman’s gestative faculty. (shrink)