Fw: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality

[Mark Walker]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Samantha Atkins"

> > Well this isn't really Mark's point -- he is simply pointing out that if
> > the objection to preventing access to life extending technologies
> > is based on the right to a future -- then abortion is going to
> > come up in the minds of critics.
>
> The abortion argument, or one variant of an answer, was used as the spine
of the argument presented from what I saw.  Using a somewhat strained
argument about a different manner in an even more strained way doesn't seem
optimal.
>
> >

While I appreciate your efforts to understand the issues, what you say here
is conceptually and historically mistaken. The first step of Marquis'
argument is to provide an  analysis of what is wrong with killing us (adult
humans). His answer is that in the typical case it deprives us of the value
of our futures. The next step in his argument is to say that this same
analysis applies to fetuses. My argument requires only agreeing with him
about the first step. I go on to apply the analysis to immortal (or emortal
or ageless--there ya go Damien and Harvey--) individuals. Clearly there is
at least the logical possibility of agreeing with the analysis of why it is
wrong to kill us mortal adults, and yet disagree that the analysis applies
to fetuses. So, there are two conceptually distinct parts of Marquis'
argument. My argument shares with him only the first step. The first step is
not an abortion argument by any stretch of the imagination, so you have not
understood the argument. Historically, the first step of Marquis' argument
was heavily influenced by Glover and Young, and so it is the least original
part of his paper.

You have called my argument 'strained', 'suboptimal' and so on. I can't see
that you have provided any reason for believing this. I realize that you
don't like the anti-abortion position, but as I have said (and as Robert has
also in effect pointed out) the issues are logically independent.


>
> A foetus IS NOT a child.  Ridding oneself of a biological accident before
it is a human being with rights in order to have reasonable control of one's
own life and wellbeing is not a case of the mother's rights trumping the
"child"'s rights.  There is not child.  This is the specious and weak form
of the argument in its original context of abortion.
>

This is a gross misrepresentation of his argument. He explicitly denies (at
least for the sake of the argument) that a fetus or newborns are persons,
human beings, etc. His argument rests on the claim that a fetus (if
unharmed) has a future like ours (if we are unharmed). Again you call an
argument weak and specious without demonstrating even an elementary grasp of
its basic structure.

Cheers,

Mark

Mark Walker, PhD
Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
University of Toronto
Room 214  Gerald Larkin Building
15 Devonshire Place
Toronto
M5S 1H8
www.permanentend.org