Class #08


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Class #08

  1. 1. <ul><li>I. Indirect Abortion is when the procedure to save the woman’s life kills the fetus </li></ul><ul><li>The fetus’s death is the result of another procedure </li></ul><ul><li>II. Direct Abortion is when the procedure to kill the fetus saves the women’s life </li></ul><ul><li>The fetus’s death is the procedure </li></ul>
  2. 2. Conception Birth Church Twinning Supreme Ct. Warren
  3. 3. <ul><li>“… there should be at least some circumstances in which a full legal right to life comes into force not at birth, but only a short time after birth—perhaps a month.” [ Practical Ethics, 1993, p. 172] </li></ul><ul><li>“ When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the haemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would … be right to kill him.” [p. 186] </li></ul><ul><li>“ The same can be said about some other conditions that can be detected before birth. Down’s syndrome … is one of these.” [p. 187] </li></ul><ul><li>“ Neither the fetus nor the newborn infant is an individual capable of regarding itself as a distinct entity with a life of its own to lead, and it is only for newborn infants, or for still earlier stages of human life, that replaceability should be considered to be an ethically acceptable option. It may still be objected that to replace either a fetus or a newborn infant is wrong because it suggests to disabled people living today that their lives are less worth living than the lives of people who are not disabled. Yet it is surely flying in the face of reality to deny that, on average, this is so.” [p. 188] </li></ul><ul><li>“ Nevertheless, the main point is clear: killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.” [p. 191] </li></ul>
  4. 4. Which point of locating personhood is most persuasive to you? How do you evaluate Mary Ann Warren’s arguments and conclusion that place personhood after birth? vt
  5. 5. <ul><li>address the polarization of the abortion debate by trying to nudge both ends of the spectrum </li></ul><ul><li>raise questions about personhood for the pro-life side (Warren’s criteria, twinning, etc.), </li></ul><ul><li>ask whether choice should be the end of the matter for the pro-choice side (using both Daniel and Sidney Callahan’s readings), and </li></ul><ul><li>examine why Sidney thinks feminism is more compatible with a pro-life commitment than a pro-choice one </li></ul>
  6. 6. <ul><li>I. Pro-life slogans </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A. “Life begins at conception” ASSUMES…. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>B. “Abortion is murder” ASSUMES…. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>II. What does personhood mean? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A. Warren ’s two senses of ‘human’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>B. Warren ’s criteria for personhood? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>III. A range of points for personhood? </li></ul>
  7. 7. <ul><li>I. Pro-choice slogans </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A. “The woman should be able to do with her own body whatever she wants” ASSUMES…. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>B. “Abortion is a woman’s free choice. Women have the right to choose” ASSUMES…. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>II. What moral or legal restrictions does society place over what people can do with/to their own bodies? </li></ul><ul><li>III. Sidney Callahan: Pro- life feminism </li></ul><ul><li>IV. Daniel Callahan: Attempting to strengthen the Pro-choice position </li></ul>