David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (2):119-122 (2005)
This essay is a response to Julian Savulescu’s objections to the future of value argument for the immorality of abortion published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, June 2002. Firstly, Savulescu’s claim that the future of value argument has implausible implications is considered. The author argues that the argument does not have these implications. Secondly, properties which, according to Savulescu, could underwrite the wrongness of killing and that are acquired only after implantation, are considered. It is argued that none of these properties is an adequate basis for the distinction between wrongful and permissible killing
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
C. Strong (2008). A Critique of “the Best Secular Argument Against Abortion”. Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (10):727-731.
Ezio Di Nucci (2009). On How to Interpret the Role of the Future Within the Abortion Debate. Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (10):651-652.
Don Marquis (2004). Korcz's Objections to the Future-of-Value Argument. Journal of Social Philosophy 35 (1):56–60.
C. Strong (2009). Reply to Di Nucci: Why the Counterexamples Succeed. Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (5):326-327.
Keith Allen Korcz (2004). Reply to Marquis's "Korcz's Objections to the Future-of-Value Argument". Journal of Social Philosophy 35 (1):61–65.
H. Skott Brill (2003). The Future-Like-Ours Argument, Personal Identity, and the Twinning Dilemma. Social Theory and Practice 29 (3):419-430.
E. Diaz-Leon (2012). Actors Are Not Like Zombies. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 112 (1pt1):115-122.
Lynne Rudder Baker (1974). Temporal Becoming: The Argument From Physics. Philosophical Forum 6:218-236.
Patrick Todd (2011). Geachianism. Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion 3:222-251.
P. Roger Turner (2012). Jesus' Return as Lottery Puzzle: A Reply to Donald Smith. Religious Studies 48 (3):305-313.
R. G. Swinburne (1968). The Argument From Design. Philosophy 43 (165):199 - 212.
Woosuk Park (2008). Isn't the Indispensability Argument Necessarily Analogical? Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 41:13-18.
Byeong D. Lee (2003). Douven on Putnam's Model-Theoretic Argument. Erkenntnis 58 (1):7--12.
Ned Markosian (forthcoming). The Truth About the Past and the Future. In Fabrice Correia & Andrea Iacona (eds.), Around the Tree: Semantic and Metaphysical Issues Concerning Branching Time and the Open Future. Springer.
Added to index2010-08-24
Total downloads8 ( #178,836 of 1,101,724 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #306,468 of 1,101,724 )
How can I increase my downloads?