Article info
PDFResponse
Fine-tuning the impairment argument
- Correspondence to Bruce Philip Blackshaw, Philosophy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK; bblackshaw{at}gmail.com
Citation
Fine-tuning the impairment argument
Publication history
- Received September 15, 2020
- Revised October 5, 2020
- Accepted October 12, 2020
- First published November 10, 2020.
Online issue publication
January 18, 2022
Article Versions
- Previous version (9 January 2022).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
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.
Copyright information
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Other content recommended for you
- Strengthening the impairment argument against abortion
- Impairing the impairment argument
- Defending the impairment argument
- MIP does not save the impairment argument against abortion: a reply to Blackshaw and Hendricks
- Against the strengthened impairment argument: never-born fetuses have no FLO to deprive
- Strengthened impairment argument: restating Marquis?
- Parental responsibilities and moral status
- Strengthened impairment argument does not restate Marquis
- Fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD)—diagnosis and moral policing; an ethical dilemma for paediatricians
- Fetal alcohol syndrome: a prospective national surveillance study