LAUSR

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.