Simkulet William M
Philosophy, Park University, Parkville, USA.
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2024 Apr;33(2):296-299. doi: 10.1017/S0963180124000033.
Emily Carroll and Parker Crutchfield propose a new inconsistency argument against abortion restrictivism. In response, I raised several objections to their argument. Recently Carroll and Crutchfield have replied and seem to be under the impression that I'm a restrictivist. This is puzzling, since my criticism of their view included a very thinly veiled, but purposely more charitable, anti-restrictivist inconsistency argument. In this response, I explain how Carroll and Crutchfield mischaracterize my position and that of the restrictivist.
艾米丽·卡罗尔和帕克·克拉奇菲尔德针对堕胎限制主义提出了一个新的不一致性论证。作为回应，我对他们的论证提出了若干异议。最近，卡罗尔和克拉奇菲尔德进行了回复，并且似乎认为我是一名限制主义者。这令人困惑，因为我对他们观点的批评包含了一个几乎不加掩饰但有意更具宽容性的反限制主义不一致性论证。在本回应中，我解释卡罗尔和克拉奇菲尔德是如何错误描述我的立场以及限制主义者的立场的。
