Article info
PDFResponse
Ectogenesis rescue case: a reply to Hendricks
- Correspondence to Dr William Simkulet, Philosophy, Park University, Parkville, MO 64152, USA; simkuletwm{at}yahoo.com
Citation
Ectogenesis rescue case: a reply to Hendricks
Publication history
- Received July 25, 2023
- Accepted August 27, 2023
- First published September 21, 2023.
Online issue publication
August 21, 2024
Article Versions
- Previous version (21 September 2023).
- 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)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Other content recommended for you
- Abortion and Ectogenesis: Moral Compromise
- The inconsistency argument: why apparent pro-life inconsistency undermines opposition to induced abortion
- Subjects of ectogenesis: are ‘gestatelings’ fetuses, newborns or neither?
- Abortion, infanticide and moral context
- Critical notice—Defending life: a moral and legal case against abortion choice by Francis J Beckwith
- Personhood, harm and interest: a reply to Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva
- Pregnancy and superior moral status: a proposal for two thresholds of personhood
- Is there a ‘new ethics of abortion’?
- The Two tragedies argument
- Regulating abortion after ectogestation