On how to interpret the role of the future within the abortion debate

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

On how to interpret the role of the future within the abortion debate. / Di Nucci, Ezio.

In: Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 35, No. 10, 10.2009, p. 651-2.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Di Nucci, E 2009, 'On how to interpret the role of the future within the abortion debate', Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 651-2. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2009.031294

APA

Di Nucci, E. (2009). On how to interpret the role of the future within the abortion debate. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35(10), 651-2. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2009.031294

Vancouver

Di Nucci E. On how to interpret the role of the future within the abortion debate. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2009 Oct;35(10):651-2. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2009.031294

Author

Di Nucci, Ezio. / On how to interpret the role of the future within the abortion debate. In: Journal of Medical Ethics. 2009 ; Vol. 35, No. 10. pp. 651-2.

Bibtex

@article{abb079a01cb142848c43824c787a49fa,
title = "On how to interpret the role of the future within the abortion debate",
abstract = "In a previous paper, I had argued that Strong's counterexamples to Marquis's argument against abortion-according to which terminating fetuses is wrong because it deprives them of a valuable future-fail either because they have no bearing on Marquis's argument or because they make unacceptable claims about what constitutes a valuable future. In this paper I respond to Strong's criticism of my argument according to which I fail to acknowledge that Marquis uses {"}future like ours{"} and {"}valuable future{"} interchangeably. I show that my argument does not rely on not acknowledging that {"}future like ours{"} and {"}valuable future{"} are interchangeable; and that, rather, it is exactly by replacing {"}future like ours{"} with {"}valuable future{"} that I construct my argument against Strong. I conclude with some remarks on how Marquis's concept of {"}future like ours{"} should be interpreted.",
keywords = "Abortion, Induced, Female, Human Rights, Humans, Pregnancy, Value of Life",
author = "{Di Nucci}, Ezio",
year = "2009",
month = oct,
doi = "10.1136/jme.2009.031294",
language = "English",
volume = "35",
pages = "651--2",
journal = "Journal of Medical Ethics",
issn = "0306-6800",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "10",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - On how to interpret the role of the future within the abortion debate

AU - Di Nucci, Ezio

PY - 2009/10

Y1 - 2009/10

N2 - In a previous paper, I had argued that Strong's counterexamples to Marquis's argument against abortion-according to which terminating fetuses is wrong because it deprives them of a valuable future-fail either because they have no bearing on Marquis's argument or because they make unacceptable claims about what constitutes a valuable future. In this paper I respond to Strong's criticism of my argument according to which I fail to acknowledge that Marquis uses "future like ours" and "valuable future" interchangeably. I show that my argument does not rely on not acknowledging that "future like ours" and "valuable future" are interchangeable; and that, rather, it is exactly by replacing "future like ours" with "valuable future" that I construct my argument against Strong. I conclude with some remarks on how Marquis's concept of "future like ours" should be interpreted.

AB - In a previous paper, I had argued that Strong's counterexamples to Marquis's argument against abortion-according to which terminating fetuses is wrong because it deprives them of a valuable future-fail either because they have no bearing on Marquis's argument or because they make unacceptable claims about what constitutes a valuable future. In this paper I respond to Strong's criticism of my argument according to which I fail to acknowledge that Marquis uses "future like ours" and "valuable future" interchangeably. I show that my argument does not rely on not acknowledging that "future like ours" and "valuable future" are interchangeable; and that, rather, it is exactly by replacing "future like ours" with "valuable future" that I construct my argument against Strong. I conclude with some remarks on how Marquis's concept of "future like ours" should be interpreted.

KW - Abortion, Induced

KW - Female

KW - Human Rights

KW - Humans

KW - Pregnancy

KW - Value of Life

U2 - 10.1136/jme.2009.031294

DO - 10.1136/jme.2009.031294

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 19793949

VL - 35

SP - 651

EP - 652

JO - Journal of Medical Ethics

JF - Journal of Medical Ethics

SN - 0306-6800

IS - 10

ER -

ID: 136849182