Journal of Medical Ethics (Online First):1-6 (2020)

Authors
Bruce P. Blackshaw
University of Birmingham
Daniel Rodger
London South Bank University
Nicholas Colgrove
Wake Forest University
Abstract
Opponents of abortion are often described as ‘inconsistent’ (hypocrites) in terms of their beliefs, actions and/or priorities. They are alleged to do too little to combat spontaneous abortion, they should be adopting cryopreserved embryos with greater frequency and so on. These types of arguments—which we call ‘inconsistency arguments’—conform to a common pattern. Each specifies what consistent opponents of abortion would do (or believe), asserts that they fail to act (or believe) accordingly and concludes that they are inconsistent. Here, we show that inconsistency arguments fail en masse. In short, inconsistency arguments typically face four problems. First, they usually fail to account for diversity among opponents of abortion. Second, they rely on inferences about consistency based on isolated beliefs shared by some opponents of abortion (and these inferences often do not survive once we consider other beliefs opponents of abortion tend to hold). Third, inconsistency arguments usually ignore the diverse ways in which opponents of abortion might act on their beliefs. Fourth, inconsistency arguments criticise groups of people without threatening their beliefs (eg, that abortion is immoral). Setting these problems aside, even supposing inconsistency arguments are successful, they hardly matter. In fact, in the two best-case scenarios—where inconsistency arguments succeed—they either encourage millions of people to make the world a (much) worse place (from the critic’s perspective) or promote epistemically and morally irresponsible practices. We conclude that a more valuable discussion would be had by focusing on the arguments made by opponents of abortion rather than opponents themselves.
Keywords Abortion  prolife  pro-life  pro-birth  hypocrisy  hypocrite  consistency  miscarriage  spontaneous abortion  early pregnancy loss  pro-choice
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2020-106633
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Abortion and Miscarriage.Amy Berg - 2017 - Philosophical Studies 174 (5):1217-1226.

View all 36 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Abortion and Miscarriage.Amy Berg - 2017 - Philosophical Studies 174 (5):1217-1226.
The Moral Significance of Spontaneous Abortion.T. F. Murphy - 1985 - Journal of Medical Ethics 11 (2):79-83.
Chemical Abortion in Australia.Marcia Riordan - 2009 - Chisholm Health Ethics Bulletin 15 (2):6.
Abortion and the Beginning and End of Human Life.Don Marquis - 2006 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34 (1):16-25.
Abortion, Christianity, and Consistency.Richard Schoenig - 1998 - Philosophy in the Contemporary World 5 (1):32-37.
Abortion and Assent.Rosamond Rhodes - 1999 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 8 (4):416-427.
Cursed Lamp: The Problem of Spontaneous Abortion.William Simkulet - 2017 - Journal of Medical Ethics 43 (11):784-791.
Sex-Selective Abortion: A Matter of Choice.Jeremy Williams - 2012 - Law and Philosophy 31 (2):125-159.
Ethik der Abtreibung: Ein Überblick.Anton Leist - 1991 - Zeitschrift für Philosophische Forschung 45 (3):371 - 390.
Common Arguments About Abortion.Nathan Nobis & Kristina Grob - 2019 - Introduction to Ethics: An Open Educational Resource.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-12-10

Total views
188 ( #53,119 of 2,433,520 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
171 ( #3,313 of 2,433,520 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes