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

Published Date: May 1, 2013 | Topics: Philosophy, Reviews and Commentaries

View Source

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. 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.

Continue reading in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

More Articles & Essays

Religious Freedom Is About More Than Religion

Published Date: July 25, 2013 | Topics: Civil Rights and Liberties, Religion

U.S. foreign policy should promote liberty of belief—and unbelief. A common theory about freedom of religion suggests that such a value is grounded in a modus vivendi, or compromise: People agree to respect each other’s freedom in order to avoid religiously motivated strife. But the modus vivendi theory obscures the deep ground of principle on […]

Read More

The Achievement of John Finnis

Published Date: January 8, 2019 | Topics: Natural Law, Philosophy

(from John Keown and Robert P. George, editors, Reason, Morality, and Law: The Philosophy of John Finnis) Robert P. George “There are human goods that can be secured only through the institutions of human law, and requirements of practical reasonableness that only those institutions can satisfy.” With these words, John Finnis, while still in his […]

Read More
View All Articles & Essays