In 'Pro-life arguments against infanticide and why they are not convincing' Joona Räsänen argues that Christopher Kaczor's objections to Giubilini and Minerva's position on infanticide are not persuasive. We argue that Räsänen's criticism is largely misplaced, and that he has not engaged with Kaczor's strongest arguments against infanticide. We reply to each of Räsänen's criticisms, drawing on the full range of Kaczor's arguments, as well as adding some of our own.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12423 | DOI Listing |
PLoS One
September 2024
Skeletal Biology and Forensic Anthropology Research Group, School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
The use of diagenetic alterations in bone microstructure ('histotaphonomy') as indicators of funerary treatment in the past and for post-mortem interval calculations in forensic cases has received increasing attention in the last decade. Studies have used histological changes to conclude in-situ decomposition, mummification, infanticide and post-mortem interval. There has been very little attempt to experimentally validate the links between decomposition, depositional conditions, time-since-death and microscopic changes in human bone so that meaningful interpretations of archaeological and forensic observations can be made.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Med Ethics
November 2023
Department of Philosophy, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Bobier and Omelianchuk argue that the Birth Strategy for addressing analogies between abortion and infanticide is saddled with a dilemma. It must be accepted that non-therapeutic late-term abortions are either, impermissible, or they are not. If accepted, then the Birth Strategy is undermined.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Med Ethics
March 2022
School of History and Philosophy of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
This paper is a response to a recent paper by Bobier and Omelianchuk in which they argue that the critics of Giubilini and Minerva's defence of infanticide fail to adequately justify a moral difference at birth. They argue that such arguments would lead to an intuitively less plausible position: that late-term abortions are permissible, thus creating a dilemma for those who seek to argue that birth matters. I argue that the only way to resolve this dilemma, is to bite the naturalist bullet and accept that the intuitively plausible idea that birth constitutes a morally relevant event is simply mistaken and biologically misinformed.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Med Ethics
April 2020
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
In this paper, I respond to the criticisms towards my account of the difference in moral status between fetuses and newborns. I show my critics have not adequately argued for their view that pregnant women participate in a parent-child relationship. While an important counterexample is raised against my account, this counterexample had already been dealt with in my original paper.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBioethics
October 2019
School of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Joona Räsänen has argued that pro-life arguments against the permissibility of infanticide are not persuasive, and fail to show it to be immoral. We responded to Räsänen's arguments, concluding that his critique of pro-life arguments was misplaced. Räsänen has recently replied in 'Why pro-life arguments still are not convincing: A reply to my critics', providing some additional arguments as to why he does not find pro-life arguments against infanticide convincing.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!