Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Kyle van Oosterum and Emma Curran have recently argued that the impairment argument against abortion is weak and accomplishes little. They also claim that impairment fails to explain what makes giving a child fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) immoral, which is an important premise of the argument. Here, I explain that the impairment argument is not as weak as they believe. Further, I argue that impairment offers a superior explanation for what makes giving a child FAS immoral than their proposal based on creative beneficence.
- Abortion - Induced
- Fetus
- Future child disability
- Personhood
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
- Original research
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Impairing the impairment argument
- Fine-tuning the impairment argument
- Procreative beneficence and the prospective parent
- In defence of Procreative Beneficence
- The best possible child
- Strengthening the impairment argument against abortion
- Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and youth justice: a prevalence study among young people sentenced to detention in Western Australia
- On the partiality of procreative beneficence: a critical note
- Is procreative beneficence obligatory?
- Fetal alcohol syndrome: a prospective national surveillance study