Article info
PDFThe argument
Response to: Is the pro-choice position for infanticide ‘madness’?
- Correspondence to Professor Robert P George, Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School and McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA; rgeorge{at}Princeton.edu
Citation
Response to: Is the pro-choice position for infanticide ‘madness’?
Publication history
- Received November 30, 2012
- Accepted December 5, 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
- Infanticide and madness
- Infanticide: a reply to Giubilini and Minerva
- Infanticide and moral consistency
- The Italian reaction to the Giubilini and Minerva paper
- Abortion, infanticide and moral context
- Potentials and burdens: a reply to Giubilini and Minerva
- Why two arguments from probability fail and one argument from Thomson’s analogy of the violinist succeeds in justifying embryo destruction in some situations
- Cursed lamp: the problem of spontaneous abortion
- The problems with utilitarian conceptions of personhood in the abortion debate
- Birth, meaningful viability and abortion