Uploaded on

 

More in: Spiritual
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
90
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Maybe give them 5 minutes and have half of them talk about choice in Daniel (what are his concerns about the choice in ‘pro-choice’?) and the other half talk about pro-life in Sidney (why is she a pro-life feminist). Pro-choice slogans assume fetus is just part of woman’s body and that we have complete rights over our own body (A) assumes husband/boyfriend has no rights in abortion decisions yet males end up more in favor of abortion than women abortion may liberate men more than women a right to privacy may legitimate male irresponsibility (Sidney Callahan) pro-choice would say (as Ellen Willis does) that women can never be fully equal to men as long as they don’t have the freedom to decide when or whether they want to have children pro-life would say (Sidney) that if abortion is solely the woman’s choice, unwanted pregnancy becomes solely the woman’s problem if women say, ‘it’s my body, it’s my choice ,’ men can say ‘then it’s your problem. See ya.’ That’s your choice. Here’s mine. can’t give women a choice and withhold it from men and the courts shouldn’t force men to be responsible for someone else’s private property (DANIEL Callahan talks about “compelling leverage” this also assumes abortion is just an individual issue —so a failure to see the social dimensions of the abortion issue so if the woman has a choice, then why don’t men and why doesn’t the government? fatherhood becomes legally irrelevant when reproductive issues are just female concerns (A) also assumes that people have unlimited rights over their own bodies but there are lots of things the law doesn’t let you do with your own body drug use, selling my kidneys, prostitution, getting a tattoo used to be illegal in Indiana, helmet laws, seatbelt laws, exposing (B) Assumes that any choice a woman makes concerning abortion is a good one -seems to assume any choice that gets made is a good one -Daniel Callahan said that pro-choice side has never really known what to do with the moral issue but if you can’t say what a BAD abortion choice is, then what else can’t you say? -- what a GOOD one is and that means that you’ll cut yourself off from winning adherents from the middle ground, which is where most people are 20% 60% 20% -if you’re saying you’re FOR CHOICE, does that mean you’re for any choice? (XP, p. 58---sex selection, selling fetus for commercial or experimental purposes, etc.) if so, you’ve abandoned morality if not, then you need to specify which choices you think are moral and which are not if you’re pro-choice, but not in favor of all abortions, but then you’re not in favor of choice AS choice you’re in favor of certain kinds of choices and against others - what you can't do (according to Callahan—at least without condemning the pro-choice position to the political/social graveyard) if you're pro-choice is to defend the view that ANY choice a woman makes is a moral choice just because she makes it (that is, just because it’s a choice) abortion can’t be moral JUST BECAUSE it’s a choice that confers the same privilege on all other choices (Auschwitz principle) (B) Assumes law exists to guarantee freedom of choice -but most laws coerce (speed limits) (B) Assumes we can’t or shouldn’t legislate morality -but we do this all the time (laws against murder, stealing, sex with minors, racial discrimination, perjury, and so on)

Transcript

  • 1. Who do you think made the stronger case about the duties of the politician who personally agrees with the Church about the immorality of direct abortion: Archbishop Myers or Governor Cuomo? Briefly explain why you take the side you do. vt
  • 2.
    • ask whether choice should be the end of the matter for the pro-choice side (using both Daniel and Sidney Callahan’s readings), and
    • examine why Sidney thinks feminism is more compatible with a pro-life commitment than a pro-choice one
    • put the two sides represented by Archbishop Myers and Governor Cuomo into conversation with one another and consider the strengths and weaknesses of both
  • 3.
    • I. Pro-choice slogans
      • A. “The woman should be able to do with her own body whatever she wants” ASSUMES….
      • B. “Abortion is a woman ’ s free choice. Women have the right to choose” ASSUMES….
    • II. What moral or legal restrictions does society place over what people can do with/to their own bodies?
    • III. Sidney Callahan: Pro- life feminism
    • IV. Daniel Callahan: Attempting to strengthen the Pro-choice position
  • 4.
    • Take a moral stance!
      • Why are you sitting where you ’re sitting?
      • Where are the disagreements?
      • Each side responds to/raises questions for the other side
    • Assume that we’re making a documentary to give our audience the best of both sides of this debate