129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38652592)
1. Parthenogenesis, identity, and value.
Simkulet W
Bioethics; 2024 Jun; 38(5):419-424. PubMed ID: 38652592
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. The parenthood argument.
Simkulet W
Bioethics; 2018 Jan; 32(1):10-15. PubMed ID: 29171657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
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. 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]
11. 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]
12. Marquis: a defense of abortion?
Gelfand SD
Bioethics; 2001 Apr; 15(2):135-45. PubMed ID: 11697378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Against the strengthened impairment argument: never-born fetuses have no FLO to deprive.
Gillham AR
J Med Ethics; 2020 Aug; ():. PubMed ID: 32839231
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
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. 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]
17. 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]
18. Three Problems with the Impairment Argument.
Simkulet W
Asian Bioeth Rev; 2023 Apr; 15(2):169-179. PubMed ID: 37035483
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. The morality of abortion and the deprivation of futures.
Brown MT
J Med Ethics; 2000 Apr; 26(2):103-7. PubMed ID: 10786320
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
