Why arguments against infanticide remain convincing: A reply to Räsänen. (25th January 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rodger, Daniel; Blackshaw, Bruce P.; Wilcox, Clinton
• Is Part Of: Bioethics. Volume 32:Number 3(2018)
• Page Start: 215
• Page End: 219
• Publication Date: 2018-01-25
• Subjects: abortion -- after‐birth abortion -- infanticide -- persons -- substance view; Bioethics -- Periodicals; 174.957
• DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12423
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0269-9702

Abstract

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.