The Ethics of Prenatal Injury

In: Journal of Moral Philosophy
Author: Jessica Flanigan
View More View Less
  • Jepson School of Leadership Studies, University of Richmond, Richmond, VA, United States
Online Publication Date:
01 Oct 2020
In:
Advance Articles
Article Type:
Research Article
Pages:
1–23
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1163/17455243-BJA10059
Keywords:
pregnancy; supererogation; abortion; birth; prenatal injury

Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

€29.95$34.95
Add to Cart
Rent on DeepDyve
Redeem Access Token

I argue that it is permissible for pregnant women to expose their unborn children to risks and injury. I begin with the premise that abortion is permissible. If so, then just as a pregnant woman may permissibly prevent an unborn child from experiencing any future wellbeing, she also may permissibly provide her child relatively poorer prospects for wellbeing. Therefore, it is permissible for pregnant women to take risks and cause prenatal injury. This argument has revisionary implications for policies that prevent medical research and drug use during pregnancy. It also explains why moralistic criticism of pregnant women is unwarranted.

In:
Journal of Moral Philosophy
E-ISSN:
1745-5243
Print ISSN:
1740-4681
Publisher:
Brill
Cover Journal of Moral Philosophy

  • 10 Pa. D. & C. 3d 90. 1978. McFall v. Shimp, 10 Pa. D. & C. 3d 90. Court of Common Pleas.

  • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women. 2011. “AGOG Committee Opinion No. 473: Substance Abuse Reporting and Pregnancy: The Role of the Obstetrician-Gynecologist.” Obstetrics and Gynecology 117 (1): 200–201. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31820a6216.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Barnes, Elizabeth. 2014. “Valuing Disability, Causing Disability.” Ethics 125 (1): 88–113.

  • Boonin, David. 2002. A Defense of Abortion. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Boonin, David. 2003. A Defense of Abortion. Cambridge University Press.

  • Bradley, Ben. 2008. “The Worst Time to Die*.” Ethics 118 (2): 291–314.

  • Bradley, Ben. 2012. “Doing Away with Harm.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 85 (2): 390–412.

  • Cartwright, Will. 1996. “Killing and Letting Die: A Defensible Distinction.” British Medical Bulletin 52 (2): 354–361.

  • Dare, Tim. 2009. “Parental Rights and Medical Decisions.” Pediatric Anesthesia 19 (10): 947–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9592.2009.03094.x.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Driver, Julia. 1992. “The Suberogatory.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 70 (3): 286–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048409212345181.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Fabre, Cécile. 2006. Whose Body Is It Anyway?: Justice and the Integrity of the Person. Oxford University Press on Demand. https://books.google.com/books.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Flanigan, Jessica. 2016. “Obstetric Autonomy and Informed Consent.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (1): 225–44. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=NFMVDAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg= PR9&dq=whose+body+is+it+anyway+fabre&ots=2xWbfWH4gq&sig=COWVAxbZFqmczvistBOFwcGVzuc.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Flanigan, Jessica. 2018. “Duty and Enforcement.” Journal of Political Philosophy Online First. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12173.

  • Gensler, Harry J. 1985. “A Kantian Argument against Abortion.” Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition 48 (1): 57–72.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Harman, Elizabeth. 1999. “Creation Ethics: The Moral Status of Early Fetuses and the Ethics of Abortion.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 28 (4): 310–324.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Harman, Elizabeth. 2009. “Harming as Causing Harm.” In Harming Future Persons, 137–154. Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-5697-0_7.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hurt, Hallam, Elsa Malmud, Laura Betancourt, Leonard E. Braitman, Nancy L. Brodsky, and Joan Giannetta. 1997. “Children with in Utero Cocaine Exposure Do Not Differ from Control Subjects on Intelligence Testing.” Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 151 (12): 1237–1241.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Husak, Douglas N. 1992. Drugs and Rights. Cambridge England ; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.

  • Little, Margaret Olivia. 1999. “Abortion, Intimacy, and the Duty to Gestate.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 2 (3): 295–312.

  • Liu, Katherine A., and Natalie A. Dipietro Mager. 2016. “Women’s Involvement in Clinical Trials: Historical Perspective and Future Implications.” Pharmacy Practice 14 (1). https://doi.org/10.18549/PharmPract.2016.01.708.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • McMahan, Jeff. 2003. The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life. 1 edition. Oxford University Press.

  • Mir, Leticia, Vince Dixon, and Pro Publica. 2015. “How States Handle Drug Use During Pregnancy.” ProPublica. http://projects.propublica.org/graphics/maternity-drug-policies-by-state.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Ortiz, Ana Teresa, and Laura Briggs. 2003. “The Culture of Poverty, Crack Babies, and Welfare Cheats: The Making of the. “ Healthy White Baby Crisis”.” Social Text 21 (3): 39–57.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Oster, Emily. 2014. Expecting Better: Why the Conventional Pregnancy Wisdom Is Wrong--and What You Really Need to Know. 1 edition. Penguin Books.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Parfit, Derek. 1986. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Rodin, David. 2014. “The Reciprocity Theory of Rights.” Law and Philosophy 33 (3): 281–308.

  • Savulescu, Julian. 2007. “Future People, Involuntary Medical Treatment in Pregnancy and the Duty of Easy Rescue.” Utilitas 19 (1): 1–20.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Scanlon, T. M. 2010. Moral Dimensions: Permissibility, Meaning, Blame. Reprint edition. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press.

  • Scheffler, Samuel. 2016. Death and the Afterlife. Edited by Kolodny Niko. Reprint edition. Place of publication not identified: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Shiffrin, Seana Valentine. 1999. “Wrongful Life, Procreative Responsibility, and the Significance of Harm.” Legal Theory 5 (2): 117–148.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Snyder, Jeremy. 2014. “Disregard and Dependency.” Business Ethics Journal Review. January 1, 2014. https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?openform&fp=bejr&id=bejr_2013_0001_0013_0082_0085.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Snyder, Jeremy C. 2008. “Needs Exploitation.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 11 (4): 389–405.

  • Tadros, Victor. 2011. The Ends of Harm: The Moral Foundations of Criminal Law. OUP Oxford.

  • Tannsjo, Torbjorn. 2002. “Why We Ought to Accept the Repugnant Conclusion.” Utilitas 14 (03): 339–359. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0953820800003642.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Thomson, Judith Jarvis. 1971. “A Defense of Abortion.” Philosophy & Public Affairs, 47–66.

  • Thomson, Judith Jarvis. 2008. “Turning the Trolley.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 36 (4): 359–374.

  • Wallace, R. Jay. 2010. “Hypocrisy, Moral Address, and the Equal Standing of Persons.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 38 (4): 307–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2010.01195.x.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Warren, Mary Anne. 1989. “The Moral Significance of Birth.” Hypatia 4 (3): 46–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527–2001.1989.tb00591.x.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wilkinson, Dominic, Loane Skene, Lachlan De Crespigny, and Julian Savulescu. 2016. “Protecting Future Children from In-Utero Harm.” Bioethics 30 (6): 425–432.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Woollard, Fiona. 2013. “If This Is My Body … : A Defence of the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 94 (3): 315–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12002.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 247 247 25
Full Text Views 18 18 3
PDF Views & Downloads 20 20 4