McCormick Richard A
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1991 Dec;1(4):303-5. doi: 10.1353/ken.0.0250.
... In conclusion, let me agree with Robertson that reasonable persons may indeed disagree on concrete conclusions touching preembryo freezing, discard, research, and diagnosis. But it is one of the challenges to reasonable people to give reasons for their conclusions. When Robertson notes that preembryo research "has been found acceptable by most bodies that have examined the subject," he leaves unstated the fact that many of these bodies have not given reasons for their conclusions. This is especially true of the Warnock Committee. It is definitely not true of John Robertson. He has attempted to give analytic support for his rather permissive positions. I find this support too fragile for its assigned task, though I hasten to say that this does not mean that only a totally prohibitive position is defensible or is mine. Prima facie still means prima facie.
总之,我同意罗伯逊的观点,即理性的人在涉及胚胎前冷冻、丢弃、研究和诊断的具体结论上可能确实存在分歧。但对理性的人来说,为自己的结论给出理由是一项挑战。当罗伯逊指出胚胎前研究“已被大多数审查该主题的机构认为是可以接受的”时,他没有说明这样一个事实,即这些机构中的许多都没有为自己的结论给出理由。沃诺克委员会尤其如此。但约翰·罗伯逊绝对不是这样。他试图为自己相当宽松的立场提供分析支持。尽管我赶紧补充说,这并不意味着只有完全禁止的立场才是站得住脚的,或者才是我的立场,但我发现这种支持对于其设定的任务来说过于薄弱。表面上仍然意味着表面上。