In my essay, a critique of “the best secular argument against abortion” I reconstructed and criticised two versions of Don Marquis’s well-known argument against abortion. In critiquing the version I call the “essence argument”, I presented counterexamples to one of the premises in that argument. In this issue of the journal, Ezio Di Nucci takes note of the fact that I used the term “valuable future” in the premise but used the term “future like ours” in the counterexamples. Because the terms are different, Di Nucci claimed that my counterexamples had no bearing on the premise and are therefore unsuccessful. The main error in Di Nucci’s objection is a failure to acknowledge that Marquis uses the terms “valuable future” and “future like ours” interchangeably. For the purpose of reconstructing Marquis’s argument, the term “valuable future” is to be taken in a sense that means the same as “future like ours”. Once this point is recognised, Di Nucci’s objection falls apart.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests: None.
Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
- The concise argument
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Abortion: Strong’s counterexamples fail
- Reply to Marquis: how things stand with the ‘future like ours’ argument
- A critique of “the best secular argument against abortion”
- Strong's objections to the future of value account
- On how to interpret the role of the future within the abortion debate
- Savulescu’s objections to the future of value argument
- A future like ours revisited
- Deprivations, futures and the wrongness of killing
- Abortion and human nature
- The morality of abortion and the deprivation of futures