Article Text
Abstract
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.
- Abortion
- Attitudes Toward Death
- Capital Punishment
- Failure of Contraception/Wrongful Birth
- Newborns and Minors
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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
- Creating and sacrificing embryos for stem cells
- Personhood, harm and interest: a reply to Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva
- After - birth abortion: why should the baby live
- Abortion, infanticide and moral context
- Yes, the baby should live: a pro-choice response to Giubilini and Minerva
- Critical notice — Defending life: a moral and legal case against abortion choice by Francis J Beckwith
- Of course the baby should live: against ‘ after - birth abortion ’
- Is there a ‘ new ethics of abortion ’
- After - birth and before - birth personhood: why the baby should live
- The common premise for uncommon conclusions