David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethics 116 (4):625-655 (2006)
Many people who believe that abortion may often be justiﬁed by appeal to the pregnant woman’s interests also believe that a woman’s inﬂiction of signiﬁcant but nonlethal injury on her fetus can seldom be justiﬁed by appeal to her interests. Yet the second of these beliefs can seem to cast doubt on the ﬁrst. For the view that the inﬂiction of prenatal injury is seriously morally objectionable may seem to presuppose a view about the status of the fetus that challenges the permissibility of abortion. The fear of being interpreted as implicitly endorsing such a view has thus led some defenders of abortion to be reluctant for tactical reasons to condemn the inﬂiction of prenatal injury. In this they are encouraged by those who exploit the issue of prenatal injury in their campaign against abortion. When, for example, the House and Senate in 2004 passed legislation recognizing two victims of an assault against a pregnant woman, many viewed this as a tactic in a larger strategy to restrict access to abortion. This tactic is potentially effective. For people may ﬁnd it compelling to infer that, if injuring a fetus is seriously objectionable, abortion must be even more objectionable, since killing is normally more seriously objectionable than merely injuring.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Jeff Mcmahan (2009). Cognitive Disability and Cognitive Enhancement. Metaphilosophy 40 (3-4):582-605.
Sandeep Sreekumar (2015). Some Conceptual Aspects of Temporality and the Ability to Possess Rights. Ratio Juris 28 (3):330-353.
Saul Smilansky (2013). Why Moral Paradoxes Matter? “Teflon Immorality” and the Perversity of Life. Philosophical Studies 165 (1):229-243.
Similar books and articles
Habib Ahmad Sajid Ul-Ghafoor & Muhammad Ilyas Mukhtar Alam (2010). Abortion and Protection of the Human Fetus: Religious and Legal Problems in Pakistan. Human Reproduction and Genetic Ethics 15 (2):55-59.
Nathan Nobis (2002). Who Needs the ’Actual Future Principle’?: Harman on Abortion. Southwest Philosophy Review 18 (2):55-63.
Soran Reader (2008). Abortion, Killing, and Maternal Moral Authority. Hypatia 23 (1):132-149.
Susan Sherwin (1981). The Concept of a Person in the Context of Abortion. Bioethics Quarterly 3 (1):21-34.
Erwin Bernat (2001). Abortion Without Free and Informed Consent? An Austrian Case of First Impression. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 26 (3):311 – 321.
James Lindemann Nelson (2000). Prenatal Diagnosis, Personal Identity, and Disability. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 10 (3):213-228.
F. M. Kamm (1992). Creation and Abortion: A Study in Moral and Legal Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
David F. Walbert (1973). Abortion, Society, and the Law. Cleveland [Ohio]Press of Case Western Reserve University.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads72 ( #60,849 of 1,911,320 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #457,064 of 1,911,320 )
How can I increase my downloads?