-
Why Infanticide is Worse than Abortion
Guest Post: James Wilson The controversy over the Giubilini and Minerva article has highlighted an important disconnect between the way that academic bioethicists think about their role, and what ordinary people think should be the role of bioethics. The style of this dispute – its acrimony and apparent incomprehension on both sides – are a
-
There’s No Good Argument for Infanticide
Guest Post: Andrew McGee, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology Reposted from The Conversation with Author permission Philosophers Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva have received an avalanche of abusive comments and emails following the publication of their paper on “post-birth abortion” in last week’s Journal of Medical Ethics. The response has been despicable but
-
Concern for Our Vulnerable Prenatal and Neonatal Children: A Brief Reply to Giubilini and Minerva
Guest Post: Charles C. Camosy, Assistant Professor of Theology,Fordham University, New York City Despite the wide public outcry over their article, Giubilini and Minerva’s arguments in defense of infanticide are nothing new. Peter Singer has become one of the best known philosophers in the world in part because of the attention he has received from
-
John Harris Clarifies his Position on Infanticide
Editor’s note: we received this communiqué from Professor John Harris, who wishes to clear up any misreading of his position on infanticide. I wish to clarify my position on infanticide to correct the impression that infanticide is something I defend or advocate. There is a big difference between an analysis of the moral symmetry of
-
Rick Santorum, birth control, and “playing God”
By Brian Earp See Brian’s most recent previous post by clicking here. See all of Brian’s previous posts by clicking here. Follow Brian on Twitter by clicking here. Rick Santorum, birth control, and “playing God” Rick Santorum thinks that birth control is immoral. Santorum, a former Senator from Pennsylvania, is one of two human beings –
-
Handling Editor Defends Decision: After – Birth Abortion
By: Prof. Kenneth Boyd, Revd Professor Emeritus of Medical Ethics, Associate Editor, JME Coming up to me at a meeting the other day, an ethics colleague waved a paper at me. “Have you seen this ?” she asked, “It’s unbelievable!” The paper was ‘After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” by two philosophers writing from
-
“Liberals Are Disgusting”: In Defence of the Publication of “After-Birth Abortion”
Editorial note: John Harris has responded to this post to clarify his position on infanticide. You can find the relevant post here. The Journal of Medical Ethics prepublished electronically an article by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva entitled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” This article has elicited personally abusive correspondence to the authors,
-
Is there a moral argument for including more common behavioural phenomena in the DSMV?
“Shyness, bereavement and eccentric behaviour could be classed as a mental illness under new guidelines, leaving millions of people at risk of being diagnosed as having a psychiatric disorder, experts fear,” reads the title of a news article earlier this month in the wake of the publication of the most recent draft of the American Psychiatric
-
The P-Factor
Electoral reform is an often-discussed topic. But the issues often concern minor modifications to the status quo. Here I suggest an entirely new approach to electing leaders of a country. It would have numerous benefits over the current system, including: – Better voter turnout – Better representation of the working classes among those who vote