Article info
PDFThe argument
Concern for our vulnerable prenatal and neonatal children: a brief reply to Giubilini and Minerva
- Correspondence to Professor Charles Camosy, Department of Theology, Fordham University, 441 E Fordham Rd, New York, NY 10458, USA; ccamosy{at}gmail.com
Citation
Concern for our vulnerable prenatal and neonatal children: a brief reply to Giubilini and Minerva
Publication history
- Received March 5, 2012
- Revised May 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
- Abortion, infanticide and moral context
- Yes, the baby should live: a pro-choice response to Giubilini and Minerva
- The Italian reaction to the Giubilini and Minerva paper
- Infanticide: a reply to Giubilini and Minerva
- Personhood, harm and interest: a reply to Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva
- Fetuses, newborns, & parental responsibility
- The common premise for uncommon conclusions
- Infanticide and moral consistency
- Of course the baby should live: against ‘after-birth abortion’
- Limitations on personhood arguments for abortion and ‘after-birth abortion’