William Simkulet has recently criticised Colgrove et al’s defence against what they have called inconsistency arguments—arguments that claim opponents of abortion (OAs) act in ways inconsistent with their underlying beliefs about human fetuses (eg, that human fetuses are persons at conception). Colgrove et al presented three objections to inconsistency arguments, which Simkulet argues are unconvincing. Further, he maintains that OAs who hold that the fetus is a person at conception fail to act on important issues such as the plight of frozen embryos, poverty and spontaneous abortion. Thus, they are morally negligent. In response, we argue that Simkulet has targeted a very narrow group of OAs, and so his criticisms are inapplicable to most OAs. We then explain why his responses to each of Colgrove et al’s objections do not succeed, even for this restricted group. Finally, we note that Simkulet fails to provide evidence for his claims regarding OAs’ supposed failures to act, and we show that OAs veritably do invest resources into these important issues. We conclude that Colgrove et al’s reasons for rejecting inconsistency arguments (en masse) remain intact.
- abortion - induced
- embryos and fetuses
- moral status
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
Contributors BPB and NC wrote this response in conjuction with extensive discussions with DR, who also critiqued and approved the submission.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- The inconsistency argument: why apparent pro-life inconsistency undermines opposition to induced abortion
- Prolife hypocrisy: why inconsistency arguments do not matter
- Within the limits of the defensible: a response to Simkulet’s argument against the pro-life view on the basis of spontaneous abortion
- Cursed lamp: the problem of spontaneous abortion
- Two Tragedies Argument: Two Mistakes
- Abortion and Ectogenesis: Moral Compromise
- The Two tragedies argument
- Embryo as epiphenomenon: some cultural, social and economic forces driving the stem cell debate
- Human embryonic stem cells and respect for life
- Positive rights, negative rights and health care