Abortion: Three Perspectives
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
OUP USA (2009)
The newest addition to the Point/Counterpoint Series, Abortion: Three Perspectives features a debate between four noted philosophers - Michael Tooley, Celia Wolf-Devine, Philip E. Devine, and Alison M. Jaggar - with three different perspectives on abortion: the "liberal" pro-choice approach, the "communitarian" pro-life approach, and the "gender justice" approach. Each of the authors takes a controversial position, and all push their philosophical opinions to their logical limits. All of the views presented are radical, both in the sense of exploring fundamental assumptions and in the sense of diverging from mainstream opinion in America. They do not rely on religious authority; therefore their arguments address all citizens regardless of their religious beliefs. The first "liberal" pro-choice approach is Michael Tooley's. After examining, analyzing, and challenging the most important arguments for a right to life before birth, he holds that abortion is always morally permissible in itself. He argues that it is unreasonable to claim that human embryos/fetuses either have or develop a right to life before birth. Celia Wolf-Devine and Philip E. Devine, however, take a "communitarian" pro-life position, arguing that the human organism is a person from the point at which it first came to be. They also argue that, because its creators are responsible for its existence, the prospective parents have a moral obligation to care for its life. Finally, Alison Jaggar explores abortion in light of political philosophy and social justice. She argues that women everywhere have a human right to abortion, that abortion rights are necessary for gender equality, and that the availability of abortion is indispensable for pubic health and social development. As philosophers, the authors have special skills in critical analysis and thinking systematically about values. Because they do not rely on religious authority, their arguments address all citizens regardless of their religious beliefs. By drawing examples from real life, employing logic, philosophy, and empirical data, and addressing views of abortion from across other disciplines, the authors present a well-informed and up-to-date discussion. Advanced courses in ethics, contemporary moral problems, sex and gender, and bioethics will find this text useful and relevant
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(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
Sigrid Graumann (2011). Zulässigkeit später Schwangerschaftsabbrüche und Behandlungspflicht von zu früh und behindert geborenen Kindern – ein ethischer Widerspruch? Ethik in der Medizin 23 (2):123-134.
Similar books and articles
Christopher Robert Kaczor (2010). The Ethics of Abortion: Women's Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice. Routledge.
Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum (eds.) (2001). The Ethics of Abortion: Pro-Life Vs. Pro-Choice. Prometheus Books.
N. Nobis (2011). Abortion, Metaphysics and Morality: A Review of Francis Beckwith's Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice. [REVIEW] Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 36 (3):261-273.
Chris Meyers (2010). The Fetal Position: A Rational Approach to the Abortion Debate. Prometheus Books.
Mathew Lu (2011). Abortion and Virtue Ethics. In Stephen Napier (ed.), Persons, Moral Worth, and Embryos: A Critical Analysis of Pro-Choice Arguments. Springer.
Michael Wreen (1987). Abortion: The Extreme Liberal Position. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 12 (3):241-265.
Richard Schoenig (1998). Abortion, Christianity, and Consistency. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 5 (1):32-37.
David F. Walbert (1973). Abortion, Society, and the Law. Cleveland [Ohio]Press of Case Western Reserve University.
Chris Kaposy (2012). Two Stalemates in the Philosophical Debate About Abortion and Why They Cannot Be Resolved Using Analogical Arguments. Bioethics 26 (2):84-92.
Celia Devine-Wolf (1995). Abortion. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 69 (1):109-112.
Roy W. Perrett (2000). Buddhism, Abortion and the Middle Way. Asian Philosophy 10 (2):101 – 114.
David Shaw (2011). Justice and the Fetus: Rawls, Children and Abortion. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 20 (1):93-101.
A. Giubilini (2012). Abortion and the Argument From Potential: What We Owe to the Ones Who Might Exist. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 37 (1):49-59.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-01-31
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?