Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T14:46:17.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Restrictivism, Abortion, and Organ Donation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2022

William Simkulet
William Simkulet*
Affiliation:
Park University, Dodge Community College, Parkville, Missouri, USA
*
Email: simkuletwm@yahoo.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentary
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , July 2022 , pp. 348 - 354
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Davis, N. Abortion and self-defense. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1984;13:175–207 Google ScholarPubMed.

2. Thomson, JJ A defense of abortion. Philosophy & Public Affairs 1971;1:47–66 Google Scholar.

3. Carroll E, Crutchfield P. The duty to protect, abortion, and organ donation. Cambridge Quarterly; forthcoming.

4. Colgrove N, Blackshaw BP, Rodger D. Prolife hypocrisy: Why inconsistency arguments do not matter. Journal of Medical Ethics 2020 Dec 10. doi:10.1136/medethics-2020-106633.

5. Goodin RE. Protecting the Vulnerable: A Reanalysis of Our Social Responsibilities; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.

6. Ord, T. The scourge: Moral implications of natural embryo loss. American Journal of Bioethics 2008;8:12–19 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

7. Lovering, R. The substance view: A critique. Bioethics 2013;27:263–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8. Berg, A. Abortion and miscarriage. Philosophical Studies 2017;174:1217–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. Marquis, D. A defence of the potential future of value theory. Journal of Medical Ethics 2002;28:198–201 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

10. Marquis, D. Manninen’s defense of abortion rights is unsuccessful. American Journal of Bioethics 2010;10(12):56–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. Simkulet, W. The parenthood argument. Bioethics 2018;32(1):10–15 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

12. Adapted from Thomson, JJ A defense of abortion. Philosophy & Public Affairs 1971;1:48–9Google Scholar.