Why inconsistency arguments fail: a response to Shaw.


Journal

The New bioethics : a multidisciplinary journal of biotechnology and the body
ISSN: 2050-2885
Titre abrégé: New Bioeth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101627814

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jun 2022
Historique:
pubmed: 10 5 2022
medline: 26 5 2022
entrez: 9 5 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Opponents of abortion are commonly said to be inconsistent in their beliefs or actions, and to fail in their obligations to prevent the deaths of embryos and fetuses from causes other than induced abortion. We have argued that these 'inconsistency arguments' conform to a pattern which is susceptible to a number of objections, and that consequently they fail

Identifiants

pubmed: 35531764
doi: 10.1080/20502877.2022.2070960
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

139-151

Auteurs

Bruce P Blackshaw (BP)

Philosophy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Nicholas Colgrove (N)

Philosophy, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.

Daniel Rodger (D)

Allied Health Sciences, London South Bank University, London, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH