Why pro‐life arguments still are not convincing: A reply to my critics

Bioethics 32 (9):628-633 (2018)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
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.
Categories
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
RSNWPA
Revision history
Archival date: 2019-09-11
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Schrödinger’s Fetus.Joona Räsänen - forthcoming - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2018-09-01

Total views
28 ( #38,436 of 42,302 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
13 ( #34,158 of 42,302 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.