Article Text
Electronic pages: Responses
Personhood, harm and interest: a reply to Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva
Abstract
In the article ‘After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?’ arguments are made in favour of the moral permissibility of intentionally killing newborn infants, under particular conditions. Here we argue that their arguments are based on an indefensible view of personhood, and we question the logic of harm and interest that informs their arguments. Furthermore, we argue that the conclusions here are so contrary to ordinary moral intuitions that the argument and conclusions based upon it—including those which defend more mainstream methods of abortion—should be treated with immediate suspicion.
- Abortion
- Embryos and Fetuses
- Children
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Fetuses, newborns, & parental responsibility
- Of course the baby should live: against ‘after-birth abortion’
- Yes, the baby should live: a pro-choice response to Giubilini and Minerva
- Infanticide: a reply to Giubilini and Minerva
- Abortion, infanticide and moral context
- Limitations on personhood arguments for abortion and ‘after-birth abortion’
- Dilemma for appeals to the moral significance of birth
- After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
- Is there a ‘new ethics of abortion’?
- Philosophy, critical thinking and ‘after-birth abortion: why should the baby live?’