Article info
PDFResponse
In defence of newborns: a response to Kingma
- Correspondence to Dr Nicholas Colgrove, Philosophy department and Center for Bioethics, Health and Society, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC 27103, USA; colgron{at}wfu.edu
Citation
In defence of newborns: a response to Kingma
Publication history
- Received February 10, 2021
- Accepted June 20, 2021
- First published July 9, 2021.
Online issue publication
July 22, 2022
Article Versions
- Previous version (9 July 2021).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
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
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Other content recommended for you
- Conventional revolution: the ethical implications of the natural progress of neonatal intensive care to artificial wombs
- Clinicians’ criteria for fetal moral status: viability and relationality, not sentience
- Abortion and Ectogenesis: Moral Compromise
- Moral uncertainty and the farming of human-pig chimeras
- Subjects of ectogenesis: are ‘gestatelings’ fetuses, newborns or neither?
- Artificial womb technology and the significance of birth: why gestatelings are not newborns (or fetuses)
- Genetic enhancement, post-persons and moral status: a reply to Buchanan
- Artificial womb technology and the frontiers of human reproduction: conceptual differences and potential implications
- In defence of gestatelings: response to Colgrove
- Are those who subscribe to the view that early embryos are persons irrational and inconsistent? A reply to Brock