Article info
Original research
Prolife hypocrisy: why inconsistency arguments do not matter
- Correspondence to Dr Nicholas Colgrove, Philosophy department and the Center for Bioethics, Health & Society, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC 27109, USA; colgron{at}wfu.edu
Citation
Prolife hypocrisy: why inconsistency arguments do not matter
Publication history
- Received June 24, 2020
- Revised October 28, 2020
- Accepted November 1, 2020
- First published December 10, 2020.
Online issue publication
November 29, 2021
Article Versions
- Previous version (10 December 2020).
- 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)) 2021. 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
- Inconsistency arguments still do not matter
- Cursed lamp: the problem of spontaneous abortion
- Abortion and Ectogenesis: Moral Compromise
- The Two tragedies argument
- Two Tragedies Argument: Two Mistakes
- What’s in a name? Embryos, entities, and ANTities in the stem cell debate
- Embryo as epiphenomenon: some cultural, social and economic forces driving the stem cell debate
- Responding to Simkulet’s objections to the two tragedies argument
- Within the limits of the defensible: a response to Simkulet’s argument against the pro-life view on the basis of spontaneous abortion