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
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.
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2019-09-11
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
693 ( #10,016 of 71,245 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
407 ( #939 of 71,245 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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