[Peace-discuss] Fw: CCHCC Annual Dinner & Adbook -- AWARE

[John Fettig]

Substitute any form of institutionalized killing for abortion...do you
still want to follow that reasoning?  I think you are beginning your
argument from the wrong principle.

I think the link that Carl posted
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/philosophical/future.shtml)
gives a very concise rebuttal to the claim that this is a matter of
religion rather than philosophy.  To quote:

>The claim that the primary wrong-making feature of a killing is the
>loss to the victim of the value of its future has obvious consequences
>for the ethics of abortion.

>The future of a standard foetus includes a set of experiences,
>projects, activities, and such which are identical with the futures
>of adult human beings and are identical with the futures of young children.

>Since the reason that is sufficient to explain why it is wrong to
>kill human beings after the time of birth is a reason that also applies
> to foetuses, it follows that abortion is prima facie morally wrong.
>     Don Marquis, Why Abortion is Immoral, The Journal of Philosophy, 86:4

John

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:08 PM, LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at advancenet.net> wrote:
> Obviously, the answer turns on ones criteria for a "good" versus "adequate"
> versus "satisfactory" versus "bad" philosophical argument. I suppose one
> could argue that overpopulation can result in an environmental disaster that
> would have negative consequences for future human beings and other species
> of animals along with the possibilities of their survival.  Their interests
> should and must be represented and protected just as that of currently
> existing human beings and certainly to the same extent as the unborn.  Would
> that be good enough to qualify?