Article Text
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Giubilini and Minerva present a clear argument for the view that, other things being equal, reasons that justify abortion also hold for early infanticide.1 A reasoned argument deserves a reasoned response. Instead, many responses following the electronic publication of the article were mere outpourings of outrage and abuse to the authors and the editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics.2
The principal arguments put by Giubilini and Minerva date back some 40 years, when Michael Tooley presented a strong case for the moral equivalence of abortion and infanticide. According to Tooley, only ‘continuing selves’ are ‘persons’, and only persons can be ascribed a ‘right to life’. …
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:
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Abortion, infanticide and moral context
- The Italian reaction to the Giubilini and Minerva paper
- Personhood, harm and interest: a reply to Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva
- Potentials and burdens: a reply to Giubilini and Minerva
- Yes, the baby should live: a pro-choice response to Giubilini and Minerva
- Of course the baby should live: against ‘after-birth abortion’
- Infanticide: a reply to Giubilini and Minerva
- Concern for our vulnerable prenatal and neonatal children: a brief reply to Giubilini and Minerva
- Dilemma for appeals to the moral significance of birth
- Fetuses, newborns, & parental responsibility