- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
Reply to Marquis
In Arthur L. Caplan & Robert Arp (eds.), Contemporary debates in bioethics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 25--129 (2014)
Abstract
This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)Links
PhilArchive
External links
(no proxy)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Through your library
- Sign in / register and customize your OpenURL resolver
- Configure custom resolver
My notes
Similar books and articles
Reply to Reiman.Don Marquis - 2014 - In Arthur L. Caplan & Robert Arp (eds.), Contemporary debates in bioethics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 25--131.
Reply to Marquis: how things stand with the 'future like ours' argument.Carson Strong - 2012 - Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (9):567-569.
Abortion, Infanticide, and the Changing Grounds of the Wrongness of Killing: Reply to Don Marquis's "Reiman on Abortion".Jeffrey Reiman - 1998 - Journal of Social Philosophy 29 (2):168-174.
A Present Like Ours.Michael Davis - 2013 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 27 (1):75-90.
Reply to Di Nucci: why the counterexamples succeed.C. Strong - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (5):326-327.
Killing, abortion, and contraception: A reply to Marquis.Alastair Norcross - 1990 - Journal of Philosophy 87 (5):268-277.
You can't lose what you ain't never had: A reply to Marquis on abortion.Walter Sinnott-Armstrong - 1999 - Philosophical Studies 96 (1):59-72.
A critique of “the best secular argument against abortion”.C. Strong - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (10):727-731.
Handling controversial arguments.Sylvie Coste-Marquis, Caroline Devred & Pierre Marquis - 2009 - Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 19 (3):311-369.
On how to interpret the role of the future within the abortion debate.Ezio Di Nucci - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (10):651-652.
Reply to Marquis's "Korcz's objections to the future-of-value argument".Keith Allen Korcz - 2004 - Journal of Social Philosophy 35 (1):61–65.
Analytics
Added to PP
2014-01-26
Downloads
8 (#1,325,033)
6 months
3 (#984,719)
2014-01-26
Downloads
8 (#1,325,033)
6 months
3 (#984,719)
Historical graph of downloads
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-5ff6c685cb-rskd8 uwo