Is There Sufficient Common Ground to Resolve the Abortion Debate?

Journal of Value Inquiry 48 (3):517-531 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

A common response to ongoing disagreement about abortion has been to look for overlap between the prolife and prochoice sides of the debate. In recent years, however, both opposing camps in the debate have claimed to be able to establish their respective positions on the basis of the same common ground. Faced with the apparent failure of philosophers to settle their differences about abortion by means of shared values, the question naturally arises: what should we do about this? It is possible to discern two main options in the scholarly literature. The first is to keep doing what we are already doing: namely, trying to create consensus on the abortion issue by appealing to analogies designed to reveal common ground. One example of this approach comes from a recent attempt by Charles Camosy to find areas of agreement with Peter Singer and other defenders of abortion.See Charles Camosy, “Common Ground on Surgical Abortion?—Engaging Peter Singer on the Moral Status of Potential Persons,”

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 76,363

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The other abortion myth—the failure of the common law.Kate Gleeson - 2009 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (1):69-81.
The moral significance of spontaneous abortion.T. F. Murphy - 1985 - Journal of Medical Ethics 11 (2):79-83.
Stumbling on status: Abortion, stem cells, and faulty reasoning. [REVIEW]Karen Lebacqz - 2012 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 33 (1):75-82.
The Relevance of Aristotle’s Notion of Equity for the Contemporary Abortion Debate.James M. Jacobs - 2004 - Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 78:119-132.
Abortion, Christianity, and Consistency.Richard Schoenig - 1998 - Philosophy in the Contemporary World 5 (1):32-37.
How Not to Argue About Abortion.Stephen Griffith - 1985 - Philosophy Research Archives 11:347-354.
Abortion, Society, and the Law. Edited by David F. Walbert & J. Douglas Butler.David F. Walbert - 1973 - Cleveland [Ohio]Press of Case Western Reserve University.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-06-28

Downloads
27 (#433,683)

6 months
1 (#451,398)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Peter Seipel
University of South Carolina

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Political Liberalisms and Their Exclusions of the Religious.Philip L. Quinn - 1995 - Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 69 (2):35 - 56.
Abortion Revisited.Don Marquis - 2007 - In Bonnie Steinbock (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Bioethics. Oxford University Press.
What is Humane Philosophy and Why is it At Risk?John Cottingham - 2009 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 65:233-255.
The deprivation argument against abortion.Dean Stretton - 2004 - Bioethics 18 (2):144–180.

View all 8 references / Add more references