Article Text
Abstract
Giubilini and Minerva argue that the permissibility of abortion entails the permissibility of infanticide. Proponents of what we refer to as the Birth Strategy claim that there is a morally significant difference brought about at birth that accounts for our strong intuition that killing newborns is morally impermissible. We argue that strategy does not account for the moral intuition that late-term, non-therapeutic abortions are morally impermissible. Advocates of the Birth Strategy must either judge non-therapeutic abortions as impermissible in the later stages of pregnancy or conclude that they are permissible on the basis of premises that are far less intuitively plausible than the opposite conclusion and its supporting premises.
- abortion
- infanticide
- moral status
- killing
Data availability statement
There are no data in this work.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Birth, meaningful viability and abortion
- Why there is no dilemma for the birth strategy: a response to Bobier and Omelianchuk
- Fetuses, newborns, & parental responsibility
- The pearl of the ‘Pro-Life’ movement? Reflections on the Kermit Gosnell controversy
- Limitations on personhood arguments for abortion and ‘after-birth abortion’
- The moral status of babies
- The common premise for uncommon conclusions
- Infanticide and moral consistency
- Does birth matter?
- Of course the baby should live: against ‘after-birth abortion’