Display options
Cite
Crummett D. MIP does not save the impairment argument against abortion: a reply to Blackshaw and Hendricks. J Med Ethics. 2020;doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106566.
Crummett, D. (2020). MIP does not save the impairment argument against abortion: a reply to Blackshaw and Hendricks. Journal of medical ethics, . https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106566
Crummett, Dustin. "MIP does not save the impairment argument against abortion: a reply to Blackshaw and Hendricks." Journal of medical ethics vol. (2020). doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106566
Crummett D. MIP does not save the impairment argument against abortion: a reply to Blackshaw and Hendricks. J Med Ethics. 2020 Sep 02; doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106566. Epub 2020 Sep 02. PMID: 32878916.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Med Ethics. 2020 Sep 02; doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106566. Epub 2020 Sep 02.

MIP does not save the impairment argument against abortion: a reply to Blackshaw and Hendricks.

Journal of medical ethics

Dustin Crummett

Affiliations

  1. Chair of Late Antique and Arabic Philosophy, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat Munchen, München 80539, Germany [email protected].

PMID: 32878916 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106566

Abstract

Perry Hendricks' original 'impairment argument' against abortion relied on 'the impairment principle' (TIP): 'if it is immoral to impair an organism O to the nth degree, then,

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Keywords: abortion; applied and professional ethics; ethics; political philosophy; public health ethics

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Publication Types