Hostname: page-component-669899f699-qzcqf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-04T09:49:01.756Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What’s Wrong with Restrictivism?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2024

William M. Simkulet
William M. Simkulet*
Affiliation:
Philosophy, Park University, Parkville, USA
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Emily Carroll and Parker Crutchfield propose a new inconsistency argument against abortion restrictivism. In response, I raised several objections to their argument. Recently Carroll and Crutchfield have replied and seem to be under the impression that I’m a restrictivist. This is puzzling, since my criticism of their view included a very thinly veiled, but purposely more charitable, anti-restrictivist inconsistency argument. In this response, I explain how Carroll and Crutchfield mischaracterize my position and that of the restrictivist.

Keywords

abortionethicsrestrictivismorgan donationinconsistency argument
Type
Responses and Dialogue
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , April 2024 , pp. 296 - 299
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Notes

1. Carroll, E, Crutchfield, P. The duty to protect, abortion, and organ donation. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2022;31(3):333–43. doi:10.1017/S096318012100102X CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

2. Colgrove, N, Blackshaw, BP, Rodger, D. Prolife hypocrisy: Why inconsistency arguments do not matter. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2021;47(e58):1–6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. Simkulet, W. Restrictivism, abortion, and organ donation. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2022;31(3):348–54. doi:10.1017/S0963180121001043 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

4. Carroll, E., Crutchfield, P. Welfare, abortion, and organ donation: A reply to the restrictivist. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. doi:10.1017/S0963180123000208 Google Scholar.

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

6. English, J. Abortion and the concept of a person. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 1975;5(2):233–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

7. Marquis, D. Why abortion is immoral. Journal of Philosophy 1989;86(4):183–202 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

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

9. Manninen BA. Banning abortions will not stop them: What the empirical data tells us. from Weinberg J. Philosophers On the Ethics and Politics of Abortion. 2019 Daily Nous. https://dailynous.com/2019/06/10/philosophers-on-ethics-politics-abortion/#bmanninen

10. Arey, W, Lerma, K, Beasley, A, Harper, L, Moayedi, G, White, K. A preview of the dangerous future of abortion Bans—Texas Senate Bill 8. New England Journal of Medicine 2022;387(5):388–90. doi:10.1056/NEJMp2207423 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

11. Boonin, D. Beyond Roe: Why Abortion Should be Legal—Even if the Fetus is a Person. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2019 Google Scholar.

12. See note 6, English 1975.

13. See note 5, Thomson 1971.

14. See note 11, Boonin 2019.

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

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

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

18. Simkulet, W. Cursed Lamp: The Problem of Spontaneous Abortion. Journal of Medical Ethics 2017;43(11):784–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19. Simkulet, W. The inconsistency argument: Why apparent pro-life inconsistency undermines opposition to induced abortion. Journal of Medical Ethics 2022;48:461–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

20. Simkulet, W. The moral significance of abortion inconsistency arguments. Asian Bioethics Review 2022;14:41–56 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

21. See note 15, 14, Ord 2008, Berg 2017.

22. See note 17, Berg 2017.

23. See note 19, Simkulet 2022.

24. See note 20, Simkulet 2022.

25. See note 1, Carroll, Crutchfield 2022.

26. See note 4, Carroll, Crutchfield.

27. Goodin RE. Protecting the Vulnerable: A Reanalysis of Our Social Responsibilities. 1985

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

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

30. See note 5, Thomson 1971.

31. See note 11, Boonin 2019.

32. See note 3, Simkulet 2022.

33. See note 4, Carroll, Crutchfield.

34. See note 9, Manninen 2019.

35. See note 10, Arey et al. 2022.