↓ Skip to main content

If Abortion, then Infanticide

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 215)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
17 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
If Abortion, then Infanticide
Published in
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11017-017-9419-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

David B. Hershenov, Rose J. Hershenov

Abstract

Our contention is that all of the major arguments for abortion are also arguments for permitting infanticide. One cannot distinguish the fetus from the infant in terms of a morally significant intrinsic property, nor are they morally discernible in terms of standing in different relationships to others. The logic of our position is that if such arguments justify abortion, then they also justify infanticide. If we are right that infanticide is not justified, then such arguments will fail to justify abortion. We respond to those philosophers who accept infanticide by putting forth a novel account of how the mindless can be wronged which serves to distinguish morally significant potential from morally irrelevant potential. This allows our account to avoid the standard objection that many entities possess a potential for personhood which we are intuitively under no obligation to further or protect.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 33%
Student > Postgraduate 2 22%
Other 1 11%
Professor 1 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Philosophy 4 44%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 33%
Social Sciences 1 11%
Unspecified 1 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 August 2019.
All research outputs
#795,586
of 13,644,504 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#6
of 215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,254
of 266,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,644,504 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 215 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 266,541 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them