Article Text
Response
Why the wrongness of intentionally impairing children in utero does not imply the wrongness of abortion
Abstract
Perry Hendricks’ ‘impairment argument’, which he has defended in this journal, is intended to demonstrate that the generally conceded wrongness of giving a fetus fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) shows that abortion must also be immoral, even if we allow that the fetus is not a rights-bearing moral person. The argument fails because the harm of causing FAS is extrinsic but Hendricks needs it to be intrinsic for it to show anything about abortion. Either the subject of the wrong of causing FAS is a person who does not exist in the case of abortion or the wrong is negligible.
- Abortion - Induced
- Embryos and Fetuses
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Strengthening the impairment argument against abortion
- Against the strengthened impairment argument: never-born fetuses have no FLO to deprive
- Is there a ‘new ethics of abortion’?
- A natural stem cell therapy? How novel findings and biotechnology clarify the ethics of stem cell research
- MIP does not save the impairment argument against abortion: a reply to Blackshaw and Hendricks
- Fine-tuning the impairment argument
- Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders from childhood to adulthood: a Swedish population-based naturalistic cohort study of adoptees from Eastern Europe
- The FASD Eye Code: a complementary diagnostic tool in fetal alcohol spectrum disorders
- Thinner retinal nerve fibre layer in young adults with foetal alcohol spectrum disorders
- Study protocol for screening and diagnosis of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD) among young people sentenced to detention in Western Australia