What role does birth play in the debate about elective abortion? Does the wrongness of infanticide imply the wrongness of late-term abortion? In this paper, I argue that the same or similar factors that make birth morally significant with regard to abortion make meaningful viability morally significant due to the relatively arbitrary time of birth. I do this by considering the positions of Mary Anne Warren and José Luis Bermúdez who argue that birth is significant enough that the wrongness of infanticide does not imply the wrongness of late-term abortion. On the basis of the relatively arbitrary timing of birth, I argue that meaningful viability is the point at which elective abortion is prima facie morally wrong.
- Moral Status
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Dilemma for appeals to the moral significance of birth
- Infanticide and moral consistency
- The pearl of the ‘Pro-Life’ movement? Reflections on the Kermit Gosnell controversy
- Fetuses, newborns, & parental responsibility
- Limitations on personhood arguments for abortion and ‘after-birth abortion’
- Why there is no dilemma for the birth strategy: a response to Bobier and Omelianchuk
- Why appeals to the moral significance of birth are saddled with a dilemma
- The common premise for uncommon conclusions
- The moral status of babies
- Avoiding anomalous newborns: preemptive abortion, treatment thresholds and the case of baby Messenger