Why a right to life rules out infanticide: A final reply to Räsänen
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 argum...
| Authors: | ; |
|---|---|
| Contributors: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
[2019]
|
| In: |
Bioethics
Year: 2019, Volume: 33, Issue: 8, Pages: 965-967 |
| IxTheo Classification: | NBE Anthropology NCH Medical ethics |
| Further subjects: | B
substance view
B Right to life B Pro-life B Infanticide B Abortion B Animalism |
| Online Access: |
Presumably Free Access Volltext (Publisher) Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | 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. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1467-8519 |
| Reference: | Kritik von "Why pro-life arguments still are not convincing (2018)"
|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Bioethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12646 |
