Article info
Electronic pages: Responses
Paper
Why should the baby live? Human right to life and the precautionary principle
- Correspondence to Dr Benedetto Rocchi, Department of Economics and Management, Vua delle Pandette, 32, 50127 Florence, Italy; benedetto.rocchi{at}unifi.it
Citation
Why should the baby live? Human right to life and the precautionary principle
Publication history
- Received April 16, 2012
- Revised December 29, 2012
- Accepted January 31, 2013
- First published May 1, 2013.
Online issue publication
May 01, 2013
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
- After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
- Infanticide: a reply to Giubilini and Minerva
- Limitations on personhood arguments for abortion and ‘after-birth abortion’
- Potentials and burdens: a reply to Giubilini and Minerva
- Personhood, harm and interest: a reply to Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva
- Philosophy, critical thinking and ‘after-birth abortion: why should the baby live?’
- After-birth and before-birth personhood: why the baby should live
- Yes, the baby should live: a pro-choice response to Giubilini and Minerva
- Fetuses, newborns, & parental responsibility
- Of souls, selves, and cerebrums: a reply to Himma