Why a right to life rules out infanticide: A final reply to Räsänen. (6th August 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Blackshaw, Bruce P.; Rodger, Daniel
• Other Names: Draper Heather guestEditor.; Moorlock Greg guestEditor.; Rogers Wendy guestEditor.; Scully Jackie guestEditor.
• Is Part Of: Bioethics. Volume 33:Number 8(2019)
• Page Start: 965
• Page End: 967
• Publication Date: 2019-08-06
• Subjects: abortion -- animalism -- infanticide -- pro‐life -- right to life -- substance view; Bioethics -- Periodicals; 174.957
• DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12646
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0269-9702

Abstract

Abstract: Joona Räsänen has argued that pro‐life arguments against the permissibility of infanticide are not persuasive, and fail to show it to be immoral. We responded to Räsänen's arguments, concluding that his critique of pro‐life arguments was misplaced. Räsänen has recently replied in 'Why pro‐life arguments still are not convincing: A reply to my critics', providing some additional arguments as to why he does not find pro‐life arguments against infanticide convincing. Here, we respond briefly to Räsänen's critique of the substance view, and also to his most important claim: that possession of a right to life by an infant does not rule out the permissibility of infanticide. We demonstrate that this claim is unfounded, and conclude that Räsänen has not refuted pro‐life arguments against infanticide.