Why pro-life arguments still are not convincing: A reply to my critics.
I argued in 'Pro-life arguments against infanticide and why they are not convincing' that arguments presented by pro-life philosophers are mistaken and cannot show infanticide to be immoral. Several scholars have offered responses to my arguments. In this paper, I reply to my critics: Daniel Rodger, Bruce P. Blackshaw and Clinton Wilcox. I also reply to Christopher Kaczor. I argue that pro-life arguments still are not convincing.
['Räsänen|Joona|J|0000-0002-7383-6138']
D000028:Abortion, Induced D005260:Female D006801:Humans D007231:Infant, Newborn D007237:Infanticide D028681:Moral Obligations D011247:Pregnancy
infanticide abortion harm killing persons substance view