Why arguments against infanticide remain convincing: A reply to Räsänen
- PMID: 29369381
- DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12423
Why arguments against infanticide remain convincing: A reply to Räsänen
Abstract
In 'Pro-life arguments against infanticide and why they are not convincing' Joona Räsänen argues that Christopher Kaczor's objections to Giubilini and Minerva's position on infanticide are not persuasive. We argue that Räsänen's criticism is largely misplaced, and that he has not engaged with Kaczor's strongest arguments against infanticide. We reply to each of Räsänen's criticisms, drawing on the full range of Kaczor's arguments, as well as adding some of our own.
Keywords: abortion; after-birth abortion; infanticide; persons; substance view.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Comment in
-
Why pro-life arguments still are not convincing: A reply to my critics.Bioethics. 2018 Nov;32(9):628-633. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12502. Epub 2018 Aug 31. Bioethics. 2018. PMID: 30168863
Comment on
-
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?J Med Ethics. 2013 May;39(5):261-3. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100411. Epub 2012 Mar 2. J Med Ethics. 2013. PMID: 22361296
-
Pro-Life Arguments Against Infanticide and Why they are Not Convincing.Bioethics. 2016 Nov;30(9):656-662. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12281. Epub 2016 Sep 9. Bioethics. 2016. PMID: 27717058
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources