Savulescu's objections to the future of value argument

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 119-122

  Marquis, D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABORTION; ARTICLE; BRAIN FUNCTION; FETUS; HUMAN; HUMAN CLONING; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MORALITY; NIDATION; OOCYTE; PUBLISHING;

GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH;

ABORTION, LEGAL; ETHICS, CLINICAL; FEMALE; HOMICIDE; HUMANS; PREGNANCY; VALUE OF LIFE;

EID: 13944273791     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2004.007633     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Marquis D. Why abortion is immoral. J Philos 1989;86:183-202.
2. Savulescu J. Abortion, embryo destruction and the future of value argument. J Med Ethics 2002;28:133-5.
3. Stone J. Why potentiality matters. Can J Philos 1987;17:815-30.
4. Brown M. The morality of abortion and the deprivation of futures. J Med Ethics 2000;26:103-7.
5. Tooley M. Abortion and infanticide. Philos Public Aff 1972;2:37-65.
6. Singer P. Practical ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
7. Marquis D. Deprivations, futures, and the wrongness of killing. J Med Ethics 2001;27:363-9.
8. Marquis D. A defence of the potential future of value theory. J Med Ethics 2002;28:198-201.
9. Tooley M. Abortion and infanticide. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983:109-12.
10. Harris J. The concept of the person and the value of life. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 1999;9:293-308, at 303.
11. Thomson J. A defence of abortion. Philos Public Aff 1971;1:47-66.
12. McMahan J. The ethics of killing: problems at the margins of life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002:270.