Article info
PDFThe argument
Philosophy, critical thinking and ‘after-birth abortion: why should the baby live?’
- Correspondence to Professor Michael Tooley, Department of Philosophy, University of Colorado, 169 Hellems, UCB 232, Boulder, CO 80309-0232, USA; Michael.Tooley{at}Colorado.edu
Citation
Philosophy, critical thinking and ‘after-birth abortion: why should the baby live?’
Publication history
- Received June 21, 2012
- Accepted November 30, 2012
- First published May 1, 2013.
Online issue publication
April 27, 2016
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions
Other content recommended for you
- Limitations on personhood arguments for abortion and ‘after-birth abortion’
- Potentials and burdens: a reply to Giubilini and Minerva
- Why should the baby live? Human right to life and the precautionary principle
- Abortion, infanticide and moral context
- After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
- Of course the baby should live: against ‘after-birth abortion’
- Is there a ‘new ethics of abortion’?
- The common premise for uncommon conclusions
- Fetuses, newborns, & parental responsibility
- Personhood, harm and interest: a reply to Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva