Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Maternal Autonomy and Prenatal Harm.Nathan Robert Howard - 2023 - Bioethics 37 (3):246-255.
    Inflicting harm is generally preferable to inflicting death. If you must choose between the two, you should generally choose to harm. But prenatal harm seems different. If a mother must choose between harming her fetus or aborting it, she may choose either, at least in many cases. So it seems that prenatal harm is particularly objectionable, sometimes on a par with death. This paper offers an explanation of why prenatal harm seems particularly objectionable by drawing an analogy to the all-or-nothing (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Prenatal Injury.Samuel Kahn - 2024 - Res Philosophica 101 (3):549-568.
    In this article, I confront Jessica Flanigan’s recent attempt to show not merely that women have a right to commit prenatal injury, but also that women who act on this right are praiseworthy and should not be criticized for this injury. I show that Flanigan’s arguments do not work, and I establish presumptive grounds against any such right—namely, prenatal injury, by definition, involves intentional or negligent harm and, as such, may be subsumed under a wider class of actions that are (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Impairing the Impairment Argument.Kyle van Oosterum & Emma J. Curran - 2024 - Journal of Medical Ethics 50 (5):335-339.
    Blackshaw and Hendricks have recently developed and defended the impairment argument against abortion, arguing that the immorality of giving a child fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) provides us with reason to believe that abortion is immoral. In this paper, we forward two criticisms of the impairment argument. First, we highlight that, as it currently stands, the argument is very weak and accomplishes very little. Second, we argue that Blackshaw and Hendricks are fundamentally mistaken about what makes giving a child FAS immoral. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • A reply to Gillham on the impairment principle.Bruce P. Blackshaw - 2024 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 27 (1):31-35.
    The impairment argument claims that abortion is immoral, because it results in a greater impairment to a fetus than other actions that are clearly immoral, such as inflicting fetal alcohol syndrome. Alex Gillham argues that the argument requires clarification of the meaning of greater impairment. He proposes two definitions, and points out the difficulties with each. In response, I argue that while the impairment argument’s definition of greater impairment is narrow in scope, it is sufficient for its intended purpose. Broadening (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • On the Permissibility of Elective Ectogestation.James J. Cordeiro - 2023 - American Journal of Bioethics 23 (5):116-118.
    Successful deployment of “artificial womb technology (AWT)” is anticipated within a decade or so. In the case of “partial” ectogestation, in vivo gestation precedes fetal transfer to an artificial...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Prenatal Injury and the Nonidentity Problem.Michael Rabenberg - 2021 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 51 (2):123-142.
    I argue that, given certain prominent views of personal identity and prudence, the nonidentity problem, or a very similar problem, can arise postconception. I clarify and defend this claim by considering the implications of these views for prenatal injury.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark