↓ Skip to main content

Clashes of consensus: on the problem of both justifying abortion of fetuses with Down syndrome and rejecting infanticide

Overview of attention for article published in Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
Title
Clashes of consensus: on the problem of both justifying abortion of fetuses with Down syndrome and rejecting infanticide
Published in
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11017-017-9398-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Henrik Friberg-Fernros

Abstract

Although the abortion of fetuses with Down syndrome has become commonplace, infanticide is still widely rejected. Generally, there are three ways of justifying the differentiation between abortion and infanticide: by referring to the differences between the moral status of the fetus versus the infant, by referring to the differences of the moral status of the act of abortion versus the act of infanticide, or by separating the way the permissibility of abortion is justified from the way the impermissibility of infanticide is justified. My argument is that none of these ways justifies the abortion of fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome while simultaneously rejecting infanticide. Either the justification for abortion is consistent with infanticide, or it is implausible to justify abortion while rejecting infanticide. I conclude the article by making some preliminary remarks about how one might manage the situation posed by my argument.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 2 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 13%
Student > Bachelor 1 13%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 13%
Researcher 1 13%
Other 2 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 25%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 13%
Mathematics 1 13%
Neuroscience 1 13%
Other 1 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 June 2017.
All research outputs
#6,516,546
of 12,611,225 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#81
of 204 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,786
of 265,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,611,225 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 204 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,783 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.