David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
International Philosophical Quarterly 45 (3):357-376 (2005)
In his A Defense of Abortion David Boonin largely misreads one of the oldest and most defensible arguments against abortion, the argument based on the fetus’s rational nature. In this paper it will be shown that Boonin’s characterization of this argument isinaccurate, that his criticisms of it are therefore ineffective, and that his own criterion—the possession of a “present, dispositional, ideal desire for a future like ours”—is insufficient to ground a human being’s right to life. Boonin’s misread of this classic argument is largelythe result of his focus upon the “properties,” as opposed to the nature, of a fetus and his failure to consider the notion of a rational nature as ordered to rational activities. In addition, his argument for abortion rights fails on its own terms because it ultimately licensesinfanticide. Infants have desires and they possess a future like ours, but they do not have any desire for a future like ours
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Francis J. Beckwith (2006). Defending Abortion Philosophically: A Review of David Boonin's a Defense of Abortion. [REVIEW] Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31 (2):177 – 203.
Anton Tupa (2009). Killing, Letting Die, and the Morality of Abortion. Journal of Applied Philosophy 26 (1):1-26.
Michael Cholbi (2010). Compulsory Victim Restitution is Punishment: A Reply to Boonin. Public Reason 2 (1):85-93.
Pedro Galvão (2007). Boonin on the Future-Like-Ours Argument Against Abortion. Bioethics 21 (6):324–328.
David Boonin-Vail (1997). A Defense of "a Defense of Abortion": On the Responsibility Objection to Thomson's Argument. Ethics 107 (2):286-313.
David Boonin-Vail (1997). Against the Golden Rule Argument Against Abortion. Journal of Applied Philosophy 14 (2):187–198.
Ann E. Cudd (2006). David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion:A Defense of Abortion. Ethics 116 (4):781-785.
David Boonin (2000). Abortion and the Ways We Value Human Life. Social Theory and Practice 26 (2):347-352.
C. Strong (2008). A Critique of “the Best Secular Argument Against Abortion”. Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (10):727-731.
David Boonin (1999). Same-Sex Marriage and the Argument From Public Disagreement. Journal of Social Philosophy 30 (2):251–259.
David Boonin-Vail (1993). The Vegetarian Savage. Environmental Ethics 15 (1):75-84.
Ezio Di Nucci (2009). On How to Interpret the Role of the Future Within the Abortion Debate. Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (10):651-652.
Nathan Nobis (2002). Who Needs the ’Actual Future Principle’?: Harman on Abortion. Southwest Philosophy Review 18 (2):55-63.
Added to index2011-01-09
Total downloads15 ( #249,386 of 1,911,652 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #144,539 of 1,911,652 )
How can I increase my downloads?