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

Bioethics 32 (9):628-633 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

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.

Author's Profile

Joona Räsänen
University of Turku

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-09-01

Downloads
1,263 (#8,206)

6 months
107 (#30,934)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?