The SIA Can't Just Go with the FLO

Area of Science:

• Ethics
• Philosophy of Medicine
• Bioethics

Background:

• The impairment argument, proposed by Hendricks (2018) and amended by Blackshaw and Hendricks (2021a, 2021b), posits that abortion is generally immoral, irrespective of the fetus's moral status.
• This argument has been recently strengthened, but its logical coherence and independent validity remain subjects of debate.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critically analyze and present three significant problems with the Strengthened Impairment Argument (SIA).
• To evaluate the SIA's dependence on external arguments, the validity of its overridingness caveat, and the robustness of its core principle.

Main Methods:

• Philosophical argumentation and logical analysis.
• Examination of the SIA's premises, caveats, and underlying principles.
• Comparison of the SIA with existing ethical arguments concerning abortion, such as Marquis' argument.

Main Results:

• The SIA, despite modifications, appears to depend on Marquis' argument for its justification.
• The argument's 'over-ridingness caveat' either begs the question regarding abortion permissibility or requires separate, unestablished justifications.
• The principle underpinning the SIA's latest version is flawed as it does not account for undercutting reasons.

Conclusions:

• The Strengthened Impairment Argument, in its current form, faces significant logical and philosophical challenges.
• The argument's reliance on external reasoning and its internal inconsistencies undermine its claimed independent validity.
• Further development is needed to address these issues if the SIA is to be considered a sound argument against abortion.