Switch to: Citations

References in:

The deprivation argument against abortion

Bioethics 18 (2):144–180 (2004)

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Thought experiments and personal identity.Stephen Coleman - 2000 - Philosophical Studies 98 (1):51-66.
    Thought experiments are profitably compared to compasses. A compass is a simple but useful device for determining direction. Nevertheless, it systematically errs in the presence of magnets ...it becomes unreliable near the North Pole, in mine shafts, when vibrated, in the presence of metal ...experts will wish to use the compass as one element in a wider portfolio of navigational techniques. Analogously, thought experiments are simple but useful devices for determining the status of propositions. Sadly, they systematically err under certain (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Why Potentiality Matters.Jim Stone - 1987 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 17 (4):815-829.
    Do fetuses have a right to life in virtue of the fact that they are potential adult human beings? I take the claim that the fetus is a potential adult human being to come to this: if the fetus grows normally there will be an adult human animal that was once the fetus. Does this fact ground a claim to our care and protection? A great deal hangs on the answer to this question. The actual mental and physical capacities of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   60 citations  
  • The argument from intrinsic value: A critique.Dean Stretton - 2000 - Bioethics 14 (3):228–239.
    In his recent book Abortion and Unborn Human Life, Patrick Lee develops an argument for foetal personhood based on intrinsic value. Lee argues that since the foetus is identical with the rational, self‐conscious being who will exist a few years later, and since this rational, self‐conscious being indisputably is intrinsically valuable, therefore the foetus must already be intrinsically valuable; for nothing can come to be at one time but become intrinsically valuable at another. I show that this argument fails on (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Killing and Equality.Jeff McMahan - 1995 - Utilitas 7 (1):1-29.
    Although the belief that killing is normally wrong is as universal and uncontroversial a moral belief as we are likely to find, no one, to my knowledge, has ever offered an account of why killing is wrong that even begins to do justice to the full range of common sense beliefs about the morality of killing. Yet such an account would be of considerable practical significance, since understanding why some killings are wrong should help us to determine the conditions in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Why Potentiality Still Matters.Jim Stone - 1994 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 24 (2):281 - 293.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • Cloning, killing, and identity.J. McMahan - 1999 - Journal of Medical Ethics 25 (2):77-86.
    One potentially valuable use of cloning is to provide a source of tissues or organs for transplantation. The most important objection to this use of cloning is that a human clone would be the sort of entity that it would be seriously wrong to kill. I argue that entities of the sort that you and I essentially are do not begin to exist until around the seventh month of fetal gestation. Therefore to kill a clone prior to that would not (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Abortion as murder?: A response.Jim Stone - 1995 - Journal of Social Philosophy 26 (1):129-146.
    I argue that people who believe fetuses have the same moral right to life as the rest of us have sufficient reasons to refuse to classify abortion as legal murder and to refuse to punish abortion as severely as legal murder.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Locating the beginnings of pain.Stuart W. G. Derbyshire - 1999 - Bioethics 13 (1):1–31.
    This paper examines the question of whether a fetus can feel pain. The question is divided into four sub questions: What is pain? What is the neurology of pain processing? What is the fetus? Are there good reasons for holding that fetuses feel pain? Pain is suggested to be a multi‐dimensional phenomenon drawing on emotional and sensory processes – a consequence of a gradual development involving a number of noxious events rather than an automatic consequence of injury or disease. The (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations