Article info
PDFResponse
Defending the two tragedies argument: a response to Simkulet
- Correspondence to Dr Henrik Friberg-Fernros, Department of Political Science, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg SE 405 30, Sweden; henrik.friberg-fernros{at}pol.gu.se
Citation
Defending the two tragedies argument: a response to Simkulet
Publication history
- Received April 1, 2019
- Accepted April 16, 2019
- First published May 15, 2019.
Online issue publication
July 01, 2019
Article Versions
- Previous version (15 May 2019).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Other content recommended for you
- The Two tragedies argument
- Two Tragedies Argument: Two Mistakes
- Cursed lamp: the problem of spontaneous abortion
- Within the limits of the defensible: a response to Simkulet’s argument against the pro-life view on the basis of spontaneous abortion
- Infanticide and moral consistency
- Responding to Simkulet’s objections to the two tragedies argument
- Meeting the Epicurean challenge: a reply to ’Abortion and Deprivation'
- Prolife hypocrisy: why inconsistency arguments do not matter
- Are those who subscribe to the view that early embryos are persons irrational and inconsistent? A reply to Brock
- Spontaneous abortion and unexpected death: a critical discussion of Marquis on abortion