144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33368424)
1. Derivative deprivation and the wrong of abortion.
Stratton-Lake P
Bioethics; 2021 Mar; 35(3):277-283. PubMed ID: 33368424
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Two puzzles for Marquis's conservative view on abortion.
Card RF
Bioethics; 2006 Sep; 20(5):264-77. PubMed ID: 17100010
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The deprivation argument against abortion.
Stretton D
Bioethics; 2004 Apr; 18(2):144-80. PubMed ID: 15148946
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Abortion: Strong's counterexamples fail.
Di Nucci E
J Med Ethics; 2009 May; 35(5):304-5; discussion 326-7. PubMed ID: 19407035
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The Identity Objection to the future-like-ours argument.
Brill S
Bioethics; 2019 Feb; 33(2):287-293. PubMed ID: 30480832
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Abortion and the Epicurean challenge.
Ekendahl K
J Med Ethics; 2020 Apr; 46(4):273-274. PubMed ID: 31630130
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Marquis: a defense of abortion?
Gelfand SD
Bioethics; 2001 Apr; 15(2):135-45. PubMed ID: 11697378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The parenthood argument.
Simkulet W
Bioethics; 2018 Jan; 32(1):10-15. PubMed ID: 29171657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. The "future like ours" argument and human embryonic stem cell research.
Kuflik A
J Med Ethics; 2008 Jun; 34(6):417-21. PubMed ID: 18511611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Broadening the future of value account of the wrongness of killing.
Di Nucci E
Med Health Care Philos; 2015 Nov; 18(4):587-90. PubMed ID: 25608793
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. On how to interpret the role of the future within the abortion debate.
Di Nucci E
J Med Ethics; 2009 Oct; 35(10):651-2. PubMed ID: 19793949
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
