Concern for our vulnerable prenatal and neonatal children: a brief reply to Giubilini and Minerva

Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (5):296-298 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This is a response to Giubilini and Minerva arguing that, on the basis of the similar moral status of the fetus and infant, infanticide is justifiable for many of the same reasons that justify abortion. It argues that, although the authors are correct in claiming the logical connection between abortion and infanticide, they are mistaken in their moral anthropology and so misunderstand which way the reasoning should cut. It concludes with an exhortation—especially to fellow pro-lifers—to have a different kind of discourse on these matters

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,774

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The moral status of babies.Andrew McGee - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (5):345-348.
‘After-birth abortion’ and arguments from potential.Justin Oakley - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (5):324-325.
Interests.H. Kuhse - 1985 - Journal of Medical Ethics 11 (3):146-149.
Infanticide and moral consistency.Jeff McMahan - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (5):273-280.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-03

Downloads
35 (#121,482)

6 months
8 (#1,326,708)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Killing fetuses and killing newborns.Ezio Di Nucci - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (5):19-20.
Infanticide and madness.Robert P. George - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (5):299-301.
The common premise for uncommon conclusions.C. A. J. Coady - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (5):284-288.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references