A Critique of Mary Anne Warren's On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, Part II

In part one of this examination, I showed that the pro-life position is not logically incoherent in considering the unborn to be human beings, both in the genetic sense and the moral sense. In this article, I'll examine her criteria for personhood and show how the unborn certainly qualify.

A Critique of Mary Anne Warren's On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, Part I

I recently gave an in-depth critique of one of the most important articles ever written on the abortion issue. I would like to turn my attention now to another popular essay written by Mary Anne Warren called On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. Whereas Thomson argued that pro-choice people can assume the unborn are full human persons and still justify abortion, Warren argued that the unborn certainly are not persons because they don't fulfill the qualifications of personhood.

In Support of Our Atheist Colleagues

Live Action News recently printed an honest and heartfelt article by pro-life atheist Sarah Terzo. Her article was in response to something that Shawn Carney, who began the 40 Days for Life campaign, said on the Life Report podcast.

Bad Pro-Choice Arguments: Is Masturbation Mass Murder

As a conservative Christian, this is a topic that used to embarrass me. Five years ago I never would have even considered writing an article on this topic, but ever since becoming a pro-life advocate, it was a topic that I’ve had to become comfortable with. Mostly because this is an argument that just doesn’t seem to go away.

A Critique of Judith Jarvis Thomson's A Defense of Abortion, Part V

For part one of this series, you can go here. For part two, this is where you should be. For part three, follow this link. And here’s part four.

A Critique of Judith Jarvis Thomson's A Defense of Abortion, Part IV

For part one of this series, go here. For part two, this is the place to be. And for part three, mosey on over this way.

How Pro-Choice People Tend to Corrupt the Abortion Debate

The abortion debate certainly has a tendency to become emotional. There are many logical arguments used to argue for and against abortion, but these can be largely ignored in favor of appeals to emotion (such as trying to argue that pro-life people are trying to take away an important “choice” for women to make). Now, I’m certainly willing to talk to my own side and illustrate ways in which pro-life people make bad arguments in the hopes that they’ll make better ones (I credit my friend and pro-life mentor Josh Brahm for helping me see the value in treating both sides fairly, as well as my friend and pro-life philosopher, Steve Wagner, through my work with Justice for All).

A Critique of Judith Jarvis Thomson's A Defense of Abortion, Part III

For part one of this series, go here. For part two of this series, go here.

Empathy in the Abortion Issue

I’m taking a bit of a break from my critical series on Thomson’s famous essay, A Defense of Abortion, to present an article that was inspired from a conversation I had with my friend, Linda, on Facebook. I am a speaker and mentor for Justice for All, which is an organization that trains people to make the pro-life case persuasively and effectively (by making good arguments and avoiding bad ones while avoiding the common pitfalls the people tend to fall into while discussing controversial topics, such as yelling and name-calling, and have good, respectful dialogue). So I have a vested interest in helping pro-life people make good arguments and avoid bad ones, including helping them see the other side as people and not as any manner of unkind thing they may think about pro-choice people. This article will be a bit of a departure from my normal output, as this will be a bit more personal.

A Critique of Judith Jarvis Thomson's A Defense of Abortion, Part II

For part one of this series, click here.

Section 1. The “extreme” pro-life view. [1]

I agree with Thomson that the view that abortion is impermissible even to save the mother’s life is an extreme pro-life view. I believe that abortions are justified if the mother’s life is in immediate jeopardy. [2] She does wonder how we are supposed to weigh the mother’s life against the unborn child’s when the mother’s life is at stake, but at that point her right to self-defense should be asserted.

A Cumulative Case for the Pro-Life Position

I'm taking a brief break from my current series of articles on Thomson's Defense of Abortion. Currently in Tasmania, lawmakers are considering decriminalizing abortion. I was asked to compose a letter making as strong a case as possible for the pro-life position and send it to the lawmakers, hopefully causing them to think twice about doing so. I would like to share my letter since I think it could be helpful. When I discuss or debate abortion, I tend to prefer to make a cumulative case for the pro-life position. That's what this letter has been based on. Now granted, I don't cover any pro-choice arguments in this letter, but it was getting lengthy as it is. Besides, I have written articles critiquing and responding to these arguments in the past (with more to come in the future). The body of the letter is in full below. I will add footnotes with additional information and comments that I'd like to add.

A Critique of Judith Jarvis Thomson's A Defense of Abortion, Part I

Probably the most famous argument against the pro-life position is Judith Jarvis Thomson’s Violinist Analogy, in which you are attached, against your will, to a famous unconscious violinist to prevent his dying from a kidney ailment. I have already responded to the violinist analogy in previous articles, but contained in the original essay this argument appeared, A Defense of Abortion, there are other arguments contained therein to argue against the pro-life position. I would like to take a look at the entirety of her essay and show why it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. I’ll look at it in sections, divided up as she divided her original essay.

Does Abortion Harm the Preborn?

In my last article, I gave a discussion of various arguments against fetal personhood, including the Functionalist view. I presented a detailed analysis of why presently exercising self-awareness does not make one inherently valuable. This will be a follow-up to my last article, presenting a detailed analysis on whether the ability to feel pain or exhibit consciousness makes an entity inherently valuable, followed by a discussion on whether the unborn is actually harmed by being aborted.

Arguments Against Fetal Personhood

In my previous article on Personhood, I explained that what makes us “persons” (if you must use the term) is our inherent nature as rational, moral agents. While I tend not to focus on personhood arguments unless the topic is broached by the other person, I can only see one reason for disqualifying the preborn from personhood: in order to justify killing them. Any definition for personhood given by a pro-choice advocate works equally well to disqualify some born people from that same status (most notably, infants). But most pro-choice people would not follow their definitions to the logical conclusion and support infanticide.

On Personhood

It’s an uncontroversial fact of science that the preborn conceived of a human male and human female are human beings (biologically) from fertilization. But does this mean that just because they’re human beings we can’t kill them? There are times when it’s almost universally accepted that it’s acceptable to kill a human being, such as in self-defense. But what if they are innocent of any wrong-doing deserving of being killed? Science can show us that something is human (e.g. you, me, infants, the preborn, etc.), but it can’t show us whether it’s wrong to kill humans. That’s where philosophy steps in.

2012: A Year in Review

I'm a few days late, but here's a year-end review for my pro-life activities.

A Future of Value

In my previous article, I examined the argument against abortion that I consider to be the strongest, the Substance View. This argument, by philosopher Don Marquis, is also a very strong argument and, when used in tandem with the Substance View, offers a very powerful cumulative case against abortion.

The Substance View

I have given you my own basic argument for the pro-life position. But now I’d like to examine two more arguments, what I consider to be the two strongest arguments for the pro-life position. The first is by a Catholic philosopher, whose argument is grounded in intuitions that most people agree with. The next argument will be by an atheist (I’ll leave who it is a mystery, but those who are well-read in the abortion issue will likely know who I’m talking about).

Philosophy in the Abortion Issue, Part III

Now we’ve seen what goes into an argument, and how to possibly respond to an argument. We’ve also seen some arguments that commit logical fallacies, which is simply an error in reasoning. Now we’ll look at some arguments that are simply bad arguments, from both sides of the abortion fence.

Philosophy in the Abortion Issue, Part II

Now that we’ve learned what goes into making an argument, let’s talk about how to respond to an argument. First, a bit about why philosophy is necessary.