Why arguments against infanticide remain convincing - a reply to Joona Räsänen
Rodger, D, Blackshaw, B.P. and Wilcox, C. (2018). Why arguments against infanticide remain convincing - a reply to Joona Räsänen. Bioethics. 32 (3), pp. 215-219. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12423
|Authors||Rodger, D, Blackshaw, B.P. and Wilcox, C.|
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||infanticide; persons; substance view; after-birth abortion; abortion|
|Journal citation||32 (3), pp. 215-219|
|Digital Object Identifier (DOI)||https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12423|
|25 Jan 2018|
|Publication process dates|
|Deposited||13 Dec 2017|
|Accepted||11 Dec 2017|
|Accepted author manuscript|
File Access Level
This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Rodger, D, Why arguments against infanticide remain convincing - a reply to Joona Räsänen, Bioethics. The article will be published in final form at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-8519 This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.
1views this month
17downloads this month