Response to: Is the pro-choice position for infanticide 'madness'?

Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (5):302-302 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

As Charles Camosy observes, he and I agree more than we disagree. He believes with no less conviction than I do that deliberately killing infant children is profoundly morally wrong and a grave violation of human rights.1 So where do we disagree?I think that killing infant children, or promoting the moral permissibility of doing so, is moral madness, and that we should say so, rather than treating infanticide as just one more legitimate, albeit in the end morally mistaken view. We owe this to potential victims of the potential mainstreaming of support for infanticide.Professor Camosy suggests that my view, or its public expression, is uncharitable towards advocates of infanticide and ‘at variance with a Christian …

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,471

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Is the pro-choice position for infanticide 'madness'?Charles Camosy - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (5):301-302.
The 'Strange' Case of the Infanticide Doctrine.Arlie Loughnan - 2012 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 32 (4):685-711.
Infanticide and madness.Robert P. George - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (5):299-301.
Infanticide.Jeff Mcmahan - 2007 - Utilitas 19 (2):131-159.
Plato on Madness and Philosophy.Daniel Werner - 2011 - Ancient Philosophy 31 (1):47-71.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-22

Downloads
67 (#244,929)

6 months
19 (#140,013)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Robert George
Durham University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references