Why arguments against infanticide remain convincing: a reply to Räsänen

Daniel Rodger, Bruce P. Blackshaw, Clinton Wilcox

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debatepeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)


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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)215-219
Issue number3
Early online date25 Jan 2018
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2018


  • abortion
  • after-birth abortion
  • infanticide
  • persons
  • substance view


Dive into the research topics of 'Why arguments against infanticide remain convincing: a reply to Räsänen'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this