Article info
PDFResponse
Reply to Marquis: how things stand with the ‘future like ours’ argument
- Correspondence to Dr Carson Strong, Department of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, 956 Court Avenue, Suite G212, Memphis, Tennessee 38163, USA; cstrong{at}uthsc.edu
Citation
Reply to Marquis: how things stand with the ‘future like ours’ argument
Publication history
- Received November 29, 2011
- Accepted March 16, 2012
- First published April 13, 2012.
Online issue publication
April 27, 2016
Article Versions
- Previous version (27 April 2016).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
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.
Copyright information
© 2012, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Other content recommended for you
- A critique of “the best secular argument against abortion”
- Abortion: Strong’s counterexamples fail
- Reply to Di Nucci: why the counterexamples succeed
- Strong's objections to the future of value account
- Savulescu’s objections to the future of value argument
- A future like ours revisited
- Deprivations, futures and the wrongness of killing
- On how to interpret the role of the future within the abortion debate
- Abortion and human nature
- The morality of abortion and the deprivation of futures