Why pro-life arguments still are not convincing: A reply to my critics
- PMID: 30168863
- DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12502
Why pro-life arguments still are not convincing: A reply to my critics
Abstract
I argued in 'Pro-life arguments against infanticide and why they are not convincing' that arguments presented by pro-life philosophers are mistaken and cannot show infanticide to be immoral. Several scholars have offered responses to my arguments. In this paper, I reply to my critics: Daniel Rodger, Bruce P. Blackshaw and Clinton Wilcox. I also reply to Christopher Kaczor. I argue that pro-life arguments still are not convincing.
Keywords: abortion; harm; infanticide; killing; persons; substance view.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Comment in
-
Ectogenesis and a right to the death of the prenatal human being: A reply to Räsänen.Bioethics. 2018 Nov;32(9):634-638. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12512. Epub 2018 Sep 25. Bioethics. 2018. PMID: 30252944
Comment on
-
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
-
A dubious defense of 'after-birth abortion': A reply to Räsänen.Bioethics. 2018 Feb;32(2):132-137. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12413. Epub 2017 Nov 24. Bioethics. 2018. PMID: 29171674
-
Why arguments against infanticide remain convincing: A reply to Räsänen.Bioethics. 2018 Mar;32(3):215-219. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12423. Epub 2018 Jan 25. Bioethics. 2018. PMID: 29369381
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical