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
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
- Fetuses, newborns, & parental responsibility
- Birth, meaningful viability and abortion
- Infanticide and moral consistency
- Yes, the baby should live: a pro-choice response to Giubilini and Minerva
- The moral status of babies
- The common premise for uncommon conclusions
- The pearl of the ‘ Pro - Life ’ movement? Reflections on the Kermit Gosnell controversy
- Limitations on personhood arguments for abortion and ‘ after - birth abortion ’
- Of course the baby should live: against ‘ after - birth abortion ’
- The moral significance of being born