The argument advanced by Giubilini and Minerva is an important one, but it suffers from some shortcomings. I briefly criticise their reasoning and method and argue that after birth abortion should be limited largely to infants with disabilities. My argument is based not on solid scientific evidence or cold rational reasoning but on intuition, something that has long been discounted as irrelevant in biomedical discourse. I end with a recommendation to all of us: in order to make a change, one should not only choose one’s battles, but also one’s weapon and mode of attack.
- Attitudes Toward Death
- Capital Punishment
- Failure of Contraception/Wrongful Birth
- Newborns and Minors
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
- Yes, the baby should live: a pro-choice response to Giubilini and Minerva
- Personhood, harm and interest: a reply to Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva
- Fetuses, newborns, & parental responsibility
- Abortion, infanticide and moral context
- Limitations on personhood arguments for abortion and ‘after-birth abortion’
- Dilemma for appeals to the moral significance of birth
- Philosophy, critical thinking and ‘after-birth abortion: why should the baby live?’
- Potentials and burdens: a reply to Giubilini and Minerva
- Infanticide: a reply to Giubilini and Minerva