Article info
PDFOriginal research
Abortion and deprivation: a reply to Marquis
- Correspondence to Dr Anna Christensen, Department of Philosophy and Religion, Central College, Pella, IA 50219, USA; christensena{at}central.edu
Citation
Abortion and deprivation: a reply to Marquis
Publication history
- Received July 4, 2018
- Revised October 8, 2018
- Accepted October 27, 2018
- First published November 14, 2018.
Online issue publication
August 02, 2019
Article Versions
- Previous version (2 August 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
- Meeting the Epicurean challenge: a reply to Christensen
- Abortion and the Epicurean challenge
- Reply to Di Nucci: why the counterexamples succeed
- Abortion: Strong’s counterexamples fail
- Meeting the Epicurean challenge: a reply to ’Abortion and Deprivation'
- A critique of “the best secular argument against abortion”
- Murder, abortion, contraception, greenhouse gas emissions and the deprivation of non-discernible and non-existent people: a reply to Marquis and Christensen
- Deprivations, futures and the wrongness of killing
- Reply to Marquis: how things stand with the ‘future like ours’ argument
- The “future like ours” argument and human embryonic stem cell research