Maternal autonomy and prenatal harm
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21504132 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Nathan Robert Howard (0000-0002-6083-458X, Department of Philosophy University of Toronto Toronto Ontario Canada, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 37 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 246-255 |
| Publication date | 2023-03-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Bioethics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0269-9702 • E-ISSN: 1467-8519 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/bioe.13131 |
| PMID | 36609984 |
| OpenAlex | W4313680986 |
| Language | EN |
This paper offers an account of why prenatal harms seem particularly objectionable. It identifies structural similarities between key cases of prenatal harm and the recently characterized “all‐or‐nothing” problem from Joe Horton. According to the account defended by the paper, a willingness to parent incurs a duty to protect the fetus from harm. This implication provides independent support for so‐called “voluntarist” or “intentionalist” accounts of parental role obligations, according to which, roughly, a mother's autonomous choice to parent a child suffices for having the obligations distinctive of parenthood toward the child
Autonomy · Criminology · Do no harm · Duty · Epistemology · Harm · Nothing · Political science · Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare · Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health · Homicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse · Law · Philosophy · Psychology · Social Psychology
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |