Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 29, 2025
09:45
Detection of Copy Number Alterations Using Single Cell Sequencing
Published on: February 17, 2017
12.0K
Against the impairment argument: A reply to Hendricks.
1Department of Philosophy, Classics, History of Art and Ideas, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Bioethics
|February 5, 2020
Summary
Perry Hendricks’s impairment argument suggests abortion is immoral by comparing it to causing fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS). This analysis argues the impairment argument is untenable because abortion can achieve goods not possible through mere impairment.
Area of Science:
- Bioethics
- Moral Philosophy
Background:
- Perry Hendricks proposed an "impairment argument" for the immorality of abortion.
- This argument posits abortion is immoral by comparing it to severe fetal impairment, like fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS).
- A key advantage is avoiding the controversial premise of fetal personhood.
Purpose of the Study:
- To critically evaluate the tenability of Hendricks's impairment argument against abortion.
- To demonstrate that the impairment argument, despite initial appeal, is ultimately flawed.
- To explore ethical considerations beyond the scope of impairment.
Main Methods:
- Philosophical analysis of the impairment argument's logical structure.
- Comparison of abortion with other forms of fetal impairment.
- Examination of potential goods achievable through abortion.
Main Results:
- The impairment argument establishes abortion as immoral by equating it to severe fetal impairment (n+1 degree).
- The argument avoids reliance on the metaphysical status of the fetus.
- However, the argument fails because abortion can achieve certain goods unattainable through mere impairment.
Conclusions:
- Hendricks's impairment argument, while innovative, is ultimately untenable.
- The ethical evaluation of abortion requires consideration of goods beyond simple impairment.
- Further ethical frameworks are needed to address the complexities of abortion.