Article info
PDFResponse
In defence of gestatelings: response to Colgrove
- Correspondence to Dr Elselijn Kingma, Department of Philosophy, University of Southampton Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Southampton, SO17 1BF, UK; e.m.kingma{at}soton.ac.uk
Citation
In defence of gestatelings: response to Colgrove
Publication history
- Received June 27, 2020
- Accepted July 1, 2020
- First published September 8, 2020.
Online issue publication
May 07, 2021
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)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Other content recommended for you
- Subjects of ectogenesis: are ‘gestatelings’ fetuses, newborns or neither?
- In defence of newborns: a response to Kingma
- Stem cell-derived embryo models: moral advance or moral obfuscation?
- Are those who subscribe to the view that early embryos are persons irrational and inconsistent? A reply to Brock
- Clinicians’ criteria for fetal moral status: viability and relationality, not sentience
- Why two arguments from probability fail and one argument from Thomson’s analogy of the violinist succeeds in justifying embryo destruction in some situations
- Is there a ‘new ethics of abortion’?
- Infanticide and moral consistency
- Abortion and Ectogenesis: Moral Compromise
- Artificial womb technology and the significance of birth: why gestatelings are not newborns (or fetuses)