Justice ethical principle abortion9/6/2023 This definition is not contested, and I think it seems clear that it is correct. It seems to me, however, that to start with the definition of abortion and an examination of the beings involved would be a fair move.Ībortion is the unnatural termination of a pregnancy by killing (at least) one human fetus. The fact that some people differ even about this very point tends to render the pro-abortion and the anti-abortion paradigms somewhat “incommensurable,” and this is probably one major reason why people are tempted to arrive at different conclusions about this topic. ”quadrilemma” argument similar to that of Peter Kreeft’s to show that, aside from all specific argumentation, abortion cannot be morally justified.īefore even beginning to discuss the issue of abortion, it is imperative to agree upon a starting point from which to reason. Specifically, I will examine two common pro-abortion arguments made by Mary Anne Warren and Judith Jarvis Thomson and demonstrate that they cannot stand up to rational scrutiny and therefore fail to justify abortion. In this brief essay, I shall attempt to clear away some of the confusion present in typical abortion debates by cooling the rhetoric with reason enlightened by scientific facts. But the guiding light in such a discussion must always be reason, not rhetoric or other fallacies, for only reason can solve this issue and judge which side is correct. Unfortunately, a heated discussion on abortion can easily and quickly turn into a battle of rhetoric rather than a dialectic of reason. The discussion received a new impetus at the release of the controversial abortion drug RU-486, “a pill to increase access to abortions and let women get them privately from their own doctor instead of facing shouting protesters at clinics.” As is the case with all controversial issues, there are very passionate people on both sides of the fence. One of the most hotly contested issues inside and outside of biomedical ethics today is abortion. My simple but surprising thesis, then, is that if one adopts Rawls’ own framework of justice as fairness, it is clear that human embryos should be entitled to the claims of justice.Ī Rational Look at the Abortion ControversyĪt the Ohio University Student Conference on Applied Ethics, Athens, Ohio In each case, Rawls discusses why the parties would seek to protect themselves in case they end up as an incapacitated or undeveloped human being when the veil of ignorance is lifted. This is most clearly proved from his remarks on how parties in his original position would think about issues like paternalism and human equality. Nevertheless, I argue in this paper that other aspects of Rawls’ own writings lead naturally and directly into a staunchly conservative position regarding the defense of human embryos. After all, Rawls has been the most recognizable intellectual champion of liberalism for the past several decades, and his few but famous remarks on the issue of abortion are clearly in line with a pro-choice framework. How should followers of the late John Rawls think about the moral status of the human embryo? Those familiar with Rawls’ work might assume that it either does not provide enough material to formulate an answer to this question, or that the answer it provides is decidedly liberal. Why Justice as Fairness Supports a Pro-Life Stance
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |