Gelfand S D
Department of Philosophy, Oklahoma State University, USA.
Bioethics. 2001 Apr;15(2):135-45. doi: 10.1111/1467-8519.00221.
This is a reply to Don Marquis' "Why Abortion is Immoral." Marquis, who asserts that abortion is morally wrong, bases his argument on the following premise: Killing a being is morally wrong if that being is the sort of being who has a valuable future. I argue that this premise is false. I then assert that if I am correct about this premise being false, Marquis is faced with a dilemma. If he does not alter the premise in a way that makes it true, his argument is unsound. However, if he does make such an alteration, he must also alter a second premise in his argument, and this second change opens him to the charge of question begging. In addition, I conclude that such an alteration requires Marquis to adopt a position much like that taken by Judith J. Thompson in "A Defense of Abortion," a position he initially states is indefensible.
这是对唐·马奎斯的《为何堕胎是不道德的》一文的回应。马奎斯断言堕胎在道德上是错误的，他的论证基于以下前提：如果一个存在物是那种拥有有价值未来的存在物，那么杀死它在道德上就是错误的。我认为这个前提是错误的。接着我断言，如果我关于这个前提错误的观点是正确的，那么马奎斯就面临一个两难困境。如果他不以使其为真的方式改变这个前提，他的论证就是不可靠的。然而，如果他确实做出这样的改变，他也必须改变其论证中的第二个前提，而这第二个改变会使他面临窃取论点的指责。此外，我得出结论，这样的改变要求马奎斯采取一种与朱迪思·贾维斯·汤普森在《为堕胎辩护》中所采取的立场非常相似的立场，而他最初称这种立场是站不住脚的。
