On the impairment argument

Bioethics. 2021 Jun;35(5):400-406. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12844. Epub 2021 Feb 1.

Abstract

Most opposition to abortion stands or falls on whether a fetus is the sort of being whose life it is seriously wrong to end. In her influential paper 'A defense of abortion,' Judith Jarvis Thomson effectively sidesteps this issue, assuming the fetus is a person with the right to life yet arguing this alone does not give it the right to use the mother's body. In a recent article, Perry Hendricks takes inspiration from Thomson and assumes the fetus is not a person, arguing that abortion is wrong because causing fetal impairment is wrong and abortion is worse than causing fetal impairment. Here I argue Hendricks' impairment argument fails. For Hendricks, risking fetal impairment is wrong because it risks harm to a future person, but if we assume the fetus is not a person, abortion doesn't harm anyone, it merely prevents them from existing.

Keywords: Judith Jarvis Thomson; abortion; impairment argument; killing/letting die; moral luck; personhood.

MeSH terms

  • Abortion, Induced*
  • Abortion, Spontaneous*
  • Dissent and Disputes
  • Female
  • Fetus
  • Humans
  • Moral Obligations
  • Personhood
  • Pregnancy
  • Value of Life