Why pro-life arguments still are not convincing: A reply to my critics
I argued in ‘Pro-life arguments against infanticide and why they are not convincing’ that arguments presented by pro-life philosophers are mistaken and cannot show infanticide to be immoral. Several scholars have offered responses to my arguments. In this paper, I reply to my critics: Daniel Rodger,...
| Published in: | Bioethics |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Contributors: | ; ; |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Wiley-Blackwell
[2018]
|
| In: |
Bioethics
|
| IxTheo Classification: | NBE Anthropology NCH Medical ethics |
| Further subjects: | B
Killing
B substance view B Harm B Persons B Infanticide B Abortion |
| Online Access: |
Presumably Free Access Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | I argued in ‘Pro-life arguments against infanticide and why they are not convincing’ that arguments presented by pro-life philosophers are mistaken and cannot show infanticide to be immoral. Several scholars have offered responses to my arguments. In this paper, I reply to my critics: Daniel Rodger, Bruce P. Blackshaw and Clinton Wilcox. I also reply to Christopher Kaczor. I argue that pro-life arguments still are not convincing. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1467-8519 |
| Reference: | Kritik von "Why arguments against infanticide remain convincing (2018)"
Kritik von "A dubious defense of ‘after-birth abortion’ (2018)" Kritik in "Why a right to life rules out infanticide (2019)" |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Bioethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12502 |