Article info
PDFElectronic pages: Responses
Limitations on personhood arguments for abortion and ‘after-birth abortion’
Citation
Limitations on personhood arguments for abortion and ‘after-birth abortion’
Publication history
- Received July 16, 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
- Yes, the baby should live: a pro-choice response to Giubilini and Minerva
- Fetuses, newborns, & parental responsibility
- After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
- Abortion, infanticide and moral context
- Why should the baby live? Human right to life and the precautionary principle
- Infanticide: a reply to Giubilini and Minerva
- Birth, meaningful viability and abortion
- Of course the baby should live: against ‘after-birth abortion’
- Personhood, harm and interest: a reply to Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva
- Philosophy, critical thinking and ‘after-birth abortion: why should the baby live?’