Article info
PDFResponse
Inconsistency arguments still do not matter
- Correspondence to Bruce Philip Blackshaw, Philosophy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; bblackshaw{at}gmail.com
Citation
Inconsistency arguments still do not matter
Publication history
- Received June 2, 2021
- Accepted July 2, 2021
- First published July 14, 2021.
Online issue publication
November 16, 2022
Article Versions
- Previous version (16 November 2022).
- 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)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
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
- Ectogenesis rescue case: a reply to Hendricks
- Human embryonic stem cells and respect for life