150 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31836622)
1. Continuing conversations about abortion and deprivation.
Christensen A
J Med Ethics; 2020 Apr; 46(4):275-276. PubMed ID: 31836622
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Meeting the Epicurean challenge: a reply to Christensen.
Blackshaw BP; Rodger D
J Med Ethics; 2019 Jul; 45(7):478-479. PubMed ID: 30772840
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Abortion and the Epicurean challenge.
Ekendahl K
J Med Ethics; 2020 Apr; 46(4):273-274. PubMed ID: 31630130
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Meeting the Epicurean challenge: a reply to 'Abortion and Deprivation'.
Colgrove N
J Med Ethics; 2019 Jun; 45(6):380-383. PubMed ID: 31189723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Abortion and deprivation: a reply to Marquis.
Christensen A
J Med Ethics; 2019 Jan; 45(1):22-25. PubMed ID: 30429204
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Spontaneous abortion and unexpected death: a critical discussion of Marquis on abortion.
Coleman MC
J Med Ethics; 2013 Feb; 39(2):89-93. PubMed ID: 23038800
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The future-like-ours argument, animalism, and mereological universalism.
Sauchelli A
Bioethics; 2018 Mar; 32(3):199-204. PubMed ID: 29369389
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Marquis: a defense of abortion?
Gelfand SD
Bioethics; 2001 Apr; 15(2):135-45. PubMed ID: 11697378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Future-like-ours as a metaphysical reductio ad absurdum argument of personal identity.
Chaffer TJ
Bioethics; 2023 May; 37(4):367-373. PubMed ID: 36773306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The parenthood argument.
Simkulet W
Bioethics; 2018 Jan; 32(1):10-15. PubMed ID: 29171657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Avoiding the Personhood Issue: Abortion, Identity, and Marquis's 'Future-Like-Ours' Argument.
Reitan E
Bioethics; 2016 May; 30(4):272-81. PubMed ID: 26424415
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Fine-tuning the impairment argument.
Blackshaw BP; Hendricks P
J Med Ethics; 2021 Sep; 47(9):641-642. PubMed ID: 33172908
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Does the Identity Objection to the future-like-ours argument succeed?
Blackshaw BP
Bioethics; 2020 Feb; 34(2):203-206. PubMed ID: 31769884
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Reply to Marquis: how things stand with the 'future like ours' argument.
Strong C
J Med Ethics; 2012 Sep; 38(9):567-9. PubMed ID: 22505733
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A critique of "the best secular argument against abortion".
Strong C
J Med Ethics; 2008 Oct; 34(10):727-31. PubMed ID: 18827103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Murder, abortion, contraception, greenhouse gas emissions and the deprivation of non-discernible and non-existent people: a reply to Marquis and Christensen.
McLachlan HV
J Med Ethics; 2019 Jun; 45(6):415-416. PubMed ID: 31018995
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Strengthened impairment argument: restating Marquis?
Gillham A
J Med Ethics; 2021 Jan; ():. PubMed ID: 33504626
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Against the impairment argument: A reply to Hendricks.
Räsänen J
Bioethics; 2020 Oct; 34(8):862-864. PubMed ID: 32017158
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A future like ours revisited.
Brown MT
J Med Ethics; 2002 Jun; 28(3):192-5; discussion 202. PubMed ID: 12042408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The Impairment Argument and Future-Like-Ours: A Problematic Dependence.
Bobier C
J Bioeth Inq; 2023 Sep; 20(3):353-357. PubMed ID: 37278912
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
