Elective Abandonment: A Male Counterpart to Abortion

Two of the most influential arguments in favour of the permissibility of abortion were put forward in the latter half of the twentieth century by Judith Jarvis Thomson and Mary Anne Warren. The implications of these arguments for unwilling putative fathers have largely not been considered. Some have...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe new bioethics Vol. 24; no. 2; pp. 122 - 134
Main Author Playford, Richard C
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England 01.07.2018
Subjects
Bioethics
elective abandonment
Abortion
fatherhood
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Two of the most influential arguments in favour of the permissibility of abortion were put forward in the latter half of the twentieth century by Judith Jarvis Thomson and Mary Anne Warren. The implications of these arguments for unwilling putative fathers have largely not been considered. Some have argued that Thomson's defence of abortion might allow a man under certain circumstances to terminate his parental responsibilities and rights. To my knowledge, nobody has considered the implications of Warren's argument for men. I will consider the implications of both arguments for men. I will argue that if they are successful defences of abortion then they are also successful in justifying a male counterpart to abortion which I label 'elective abandonment'. I will not be defending or attacking these arguments as defences of abortion, but will defend the claim that they apply as well to elective abandonment as they do to abortion.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:2050-2877
2050-2885
DOI:10.1080/20502877.2018.1472853