In a recent article, William Simkulet has argued against the anti-abortion view by invoking the fact that many human fetuses die from spontaneous abortion. He argues that this fact poses a dilemma for proponents of the anti-abortion view: either they must abandon their anti-abortion view or they must engage in preventing spontaneous abortion significantly more than at present-either to the extent that they try to prevent induced abortion or at least significantly more than they do today. In this reply, I acknowledge that, if the latter would follow, the anti-abortionist view would imply implausibly strong obligations. My aim with this reply is to demonstrate that anti-abortionists can hold on to their view without having implausibly strong obligations to prevent spontaneous abortion. My conclusion is that Simkulet clearly overstates his position by not sufficiently considering the differences between the act of killing versus death by natural causes and between positive and negative rights.

译文

在最近的一篇文章中,威廉·辛库莱特 (William Simkulet) 反对反堕胎的观点,他援引了许多人类胎儿死于自然流产的事实。他认为,这一事实给反堕胎观点的支持者带来了两难选择: 要么他们必须放弃反堕胎的观点,要么他们必须比目前更多地参与预防自然流产 -- 要么达到他们试图预防人工流产的程度,要么至少比今天多得多。在这份答复中,我承认,如果后者遵循,反堕胎主义的观点将意味着难以置信的强有力的义务。我的答复目的是证明反堕胎主义者可以坚持自己的观点,而不必承担防止自然流产的强大义务。我的结论是,Simkulet没有充分考虑自然原因造成的杀戮行为与死亡行为之间以及积极和消极权利之间的差异,显然夸大了他的立场。

+1
+2
100研值 100研值 ¥99课程
检索文献一次
下载文献一次

去下载>

成功解锁2个技能,为你点赞

《SCI写作十大必备语法》
解决你的SCI语法难题!

技能熟练度+1

视频课《玩转文献检索》
让你成为检索达人!

恭喜完成新手挑战

手机微信扫一扫,添加好友领取

免费领《Endnote文献管理工具+教程》

微信扫码, 免费领取

手机登录

获取验证码
登录