Abstract Hendricks’ The Impairment Argument (TIA) claims that it is immoral to impair a fetus by causing it to have fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS). Since aborting a fetus impairs it to a greater degree than causing it to have FAS, then abortion is also immoral. In this article, I argue that TIA ought to be rejected. This is because TIA can only succeed if it explains why causing an organism to have FAS impairs it to a morally objectionable degree, entails that abortion impairs an organism to a morally objectionable and greater degree than causing FAS, and satisfies The Impairment Principle’s ceteris paribus clause. In order to do all three things, TIA must presuppose some theory of well-being. Even then, no theory of well-being accomplishes all three tasks that TIA must in order to succeed. However, even if this is false and TIA can meet all three objectives by presupposing some theory of well-being, it would not do very much to advance the debate about the morality of abortion. As I argue, TIA would essentially restate well-established arguments against abortion based on whatever theory of well-being it must presuppose in order to be successful.

More from our Archive

• DOI: 10.1111/beer.12573 2023

  Impact of digital transformation on performance of environment, social, and governance: Empirical evidence from China

  Quan‐Jing Wang, Hai‐Jie Wang, Gen‐Fu Feng, Chun‐Ping Chang

• DOI: 10.1111/beer.12572 2023

  The differential impact of substantive and symbolic CSR attribution on job satisfaction and turnover intention

  Xin Chen, Eric Hansen, Jianfeng Cai, Jichang Xiao

• DOI: 10.46222/pharosjot.104.411 2023

  The Use of Smartphones to Communicate the Gospel of Jesus Christ

  Gedala Mulliah Naidoo

• DOI: 10.1111/mila.12466 2023

  Creating a large language model of a philosopher

  Eric Schwitzgebel, David Schwitzgebel, Anna Strasser

• DOI: 10.1177/14777509231188830 2023

  The paradox of medical necessity

  Samantha Godwin, Brian D Earp

• DOI: 10.1111/beer.12576 2023

  Not all stakeholders are equal: Corporate social responsibility variability and corporate financial performance

  Yongqiang Gao, Yumeng Nie, Taïeb Hafsi

• DOI: 10.1111/japp.12674 2023

  Responsibility for Future Climate Justice: The Direct Responsibility to Mitigate Structural Injustice for Future Generations

  Daan Keij, Boris Robert van Meurs

• DOI: 10.1111/josh.13360 2023

  Academic Accommodations for Middle and High School Students Following a Concussion: Perspectives of Teachers and School Administrators

  Heather A. Shepherd, Keith O. Yeates, Nick Reed, Jeffrey G. Caron, Kathryn J. Schneider, Carolyn A. Emery, Amanda M. Black

• DOI: 10.1111/beer.12574 2023

  Corporate environmental efforts, government environmental subsidies, and corporate <scp>non‐environmental</scp> R&amp;D intensity: Evidence from listed firms

  Weihong Chen, David Diwei Lv, Christina W. Y. Wong

• DOI: 10.1111/pops.12906 2023

  Why Chile “Woke Up.” Antecedents of the Formation of Prochange Group Consciousness Promoting Collective Action

  Stefanie Hechler, Maria Chayinska, Clara Sophie Wekenborg, Felipe Moraga‐Villablanca, Thomas Kessler, Craig McGarty