Abstract
In an article of this journal, Perry Hendricks makes a novel argument for the immorality of abortion. According to his impairment argument, abortion is immoral because: (a) it is wrong to impair a fetus to the nth degree, such as causing the fetus to have fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS); (b) it is wrong to impair a fetus to the n+1 degree (to cause the fetus to be more impaired than to have FAS); (c) killing the fetus impairs the fetus to the n+1 degree (causes it to be more impaired than to have FAS); (d) abortion kills the fetus; (e) therefore, abortion is immoral. The impairment argument is a promising account for the wrongness of abortion because it does not rely on the controversial metaphysical premise that a fetus is a person. This article aims to show, that despite some immediate advantages over the rival theories of the immorality of abortion there is a reason to believe that the impairment argument is untenable. That is because there are goods that can be achieved by abortion but that cannot be achieved by impairing the fetus.
Highlights
According to his impairment argument, abortion is immoral because: (a) it is wrong to impair a fetus to the nth degree, such as causing the fetus to have fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS); (b) it is wrong to impair a fetus to the n+1 degree; (c) killing the fetus impairs the fetus to the n+1 degree; (d) abortion kills the fetus; (e) abortion is immoral
The impairment argument is a promising account for the wrongness of abortion because it does not rely on the controversial metaphysical premise that a fetus is a person
That is because there are goods that can be achieved by abortion but that cannot be achieved by impairing the fetus
Summary
According to the impairment argument for the [im]morality of abortion,[1] abortion is immoral because it impairs a fetus to the n+1 degree, which in turn is wrong because it is wrong to impair the fetus to the nth degree. The death of the fetus is good for the prospective parents because they would avoid the burdens of parenthood, such as losing sleep due to the infant crying at night These cannot be achieved by impairing the fetus, for example, by giving it FAS. While the sperm donor might not have a moral obligation to donate the bone marrow, I believe it is safe to assume that he is at least obligated to consider the choice more seriously than would be expected from a total stranger This moral reason to consider the donation does not disappear after the child is adopted away, but it does disappear when the child is killed as a fetus.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
