Worksheet - Lecture 6 - Considering Abortion - 2021 PDF

Preview

Summary

Zellinski...

Description

Ethics: Dr. Zelinski

Worksheet for Lecture 6 – Considering Abortion After reviewing the lecture essay, complete the following worksheet, then submit it to online (in either a MS Word, plain text, or pdf format). Be sure to include the statement of the questions along with your responses. I recommend downloading the file, then filling it in with your responses and re-saving it. Use different color and style font to differentiate your responses from the questions. Note - while I will be spot checking (and grading) the lecture worksheets for accuracy, I will not be able to carefully review all your responses to every question. Hence, I will be largely grading them for completeness - based on your attempt to fully address each (part of each) question. I will be fairly lenient in this regard, so don't feel bad if you don't fill out complete responses to every question on every worksheet. That said - my main goal with the worksheets is to help you prepare notes which will be useful for you when you are studying for and taking the quizzes and final exam (remember these are "open notes"). Towards this end - I would rather see you leave a question blank then respond with something you believe to be inaccurate (or off-base), since inaccurate response not only will not be useful to you, they may end up misleading you on the exams. So, "when in doubt - leave it blank" - is a good motto. Do not take a good (or even perfect) score on a worksheet as evidence that your responses are accurate or will be satisfactory for the quizzes and exams. Always be sure to check your responses against the “model responses” which will be available in the related module shortly after the worksheet is due.

1. Optional Review a. Define human. b. Define person. c. What criteria does Kant use to identify persons? d. What criteria does Bentham use to identify persons? 2. The Traditional Arguments a. Outline (in standard form) the traditional anti-abortion argument as a valid twopremise argument, with one conditional (IF THEN) premise. 1) All fetuses are (innocent) persons. 2) Killing innocent persons is always morally wrong. Therefore, 33) Abortion is always morally wrong. b. How would Bentham assess each of this argument’s premises? Explain. Bentham would disagree with premise two and would say that killing is morally permissible in some circumstances c. How would Kant assess each of this argument’s premises? Explain. Kant would agree that this is true and have no issue with premise. d. Outline (in standard form) the traditional pro-(moral permissibility of) abortion argument as a valid two-premise argument, with one conditional (IF THEN) premise. 1. All human embryos have some quality, namely _________. 2. This quality is a sufficient condition for personhood. 3. So, All human embryos are persons. e. How would Bentham assess each of this argument’s premises? Explain. Bentham would likely agree with this argument but have drawbacks since he believe that murder is morally permissible in some cases. f. How would Kant assess each of this argument’s premises? Explain.

Ethics: Dr. Zelinski

Kant would likely fully agree with this since he believes all murder is wrong 3. The Central Point of Contention – Personhood a. What is the central point of contention in the traditional debate over abortion (express this as a question without using the term “person”). anything with the potential to be a human being with a future like ours is entitled to moral consideration b. State the “Anti-abortion line for personhood” as a valid two-premise argument, with one conditional (IF THEN) premise (without using the term “sufficient condition”). If human fetuses are human And all humans are persons Then all fetuses are persons c. State the “Pro-(moral permissibility of)abortion line against fetus’ personhood” as a valid two-premise argument, with one conditional (IF THEN) premise (without using the term “necessary condition”). All human embryos lack some quality, namely _________. This quality is a necessary condition for personhood. So, No human embryo is a person. 4. Don Marquis’s Anti-abortion argument a. State the Don Marquis’ argument for the position that “all fetuses are persons” as a valid two-premise argument, with one conditional (IF THEN) premise (without using the term “sufficient condition”). Having “(the capacity for having) a future like ours” is a sufficient condition for personhood. All human fetuses have the capacity for having a future like ours. So, all human fetuses are (innocent) persons. It is always wrong to kill an innocent person. Therefore, 5) Abortion is always wrong. b. What does Marquis propose as a sufficient condition for personhood? The capacity for having a future like ours c. Describe, in general terms, what a counter-example to Marquis’ claim of a sufficient condition for personhood would have to look like. Fetuses with significant genetic abnormalities d. Sketch the Contraception Reductio to Marquis’ proposed criterion, as a valid reductio. If the potential to have “a future like ours” is a sufficient condition for personhood, then a sperm and egg cell (immediately) prior to fertilization would have to be considered a person(s). Hence, contraception (in this case) would be murder.

Ethics: Dr. Zelinski

But this is absurd. No sperm &/or egg cell is a person & contraception is never murder. So, the potential to have a future like ours is not a sufficient condition for personhood. e. What would it mean to “bite the bullet” in this case? He would have to agree that a person would be created at the moment of contraception f. How does Marquis respond to this objection? Does he bite the bullet or deny the implication? What reasoning does he give? Marquis denies the implication here (denying premise 1). He points out that neither a sperm cell or an egg cell, by themselves, prior to fertilization has “the potential for a future like ours”. g. Optional: What do you think of Marquis response? h. Sketch the Cloning Reductio to Marquis’ proposed criterion, as a valid reductio. If the potential to have “a future like ours” is a sufficient condition for personhood and human cloning was possible, then any human cell would have to be considered a person. Hence, destroying any human cell would be murder. But this is absurd. No single human cell would be a person, even if human cloning was possible. So, the potential to have a future like ours is not a sufficient condition for personhood. i.

What would it mean to “bite the bullet” in this case? He would have to agree any human cell is a person j. How might Marquis respond to this objection? He would likely deny the implication k. Optional: What do you think of this objection? l.

Describe Warren’s Space Explorer Case.

You are a space explorer who is being detained by aliens who want to use you’re a small portion of your DNA to produce 100,000 persons. You are reasonably certain that after your detention, which involves some discomfort to you and obviously impedes your freedom, 100,000 new persons will exist and they will lead relatively happy lives. Is it morally permissible for you to escape (you know you can do so easily)? Is it relevant how you came to be detained or how long and how much discomfort your detention would involve? m. Optional: What do you think - would it be wrong for the space explorer to escape (if it meant that thousands of potential people would never come into existence? Why (not)?

Ethics: Dr. Zelinski

5. Warren’s Pro-Moral Permissibility of Abortion Argument a. List the five criteria Warren associates with personhood. i. ii. iii. iv. v.

Consciousness/ Sentience The capacity to reason/ autonomy The capacity for self-motivated action The capacity to communicate Self-awareness

b. Optional: Do you agree that having at least one of these criteria is a necessary condition for personhood? If not, describe a person that lacks all these criteria. c. Sketch Warren’s argument for the claim, “No fetus is a person”, as a valid two premise argument. If an entity is neither conscious/ sentient nor possesses the capacity for rational, autonomous decision-making then it is not a person. All human fetuses lack sentience and the capacity for rational, autonomous decision-making. So, no human fetus is a person. d. Explain why late term fetuses pose a challenge for Warren. Which specific premise do they challenge? some (late-term) fetuses do have some level of consciousness and sentience. 2 e. How does Warren revise her argument in response to this challenge? all abortion prior to the last couple weeks of a pregnancy are morally permissible”, since no fetuses prior to this point is a person (since they are not conscious). f. Sketch the reductio objection which Warren uses to demonstrate that late term fetuses aren’t persons, which references “the average fish”. Optional: What do you make of this objection? If the rudimentary level of consciousness possessed by late-term human fetuses is sufficient for personhood, then fish would qualify for personhood. But – fish are not persons. So, the rudimentary level of consciousness possessed by late-term human fetuses is NOT sufficient for personhood. g. Sketch the Infant Reductio to Warren’s criteria for personhood. If having a “highly” developed capacity for sentience or autonomy is a necessary condition for personhood, then newborn human infants are not persons. But, this is absurd – new born human infants ARE persons. Therefore, having a “highly” developed capacity for sentience or autonomy is NOT a necessary condition for personhood. h. Explain what it means that she “bites the bullet” in response to this objection.

Ethics: Dr. Zelinski

i.

new born human infants are NOT persons Optional: What do you think - assess the reductio and Warren’s response?

j. Sketch the Infantcide Reductio to Warren’s criteria for personhood, as a valid twopremise argument. 1. If human infants aren’t persons, then infanticide would be morally permissible. 2. But, that’s absurd. Infanticide is NOT morally permissible 3. So, human infants are persons k. Explain what it would mean for her to “bite the bullet” in response to this objection. She would have to condone infanticide. l. How does Warren respond to this argument? She insists that infanticide is wrong 6. Warren’s Crucial Difference and her Couch a. Why is it wrong to destroy a human infant, according to Warren? It hurts the people who love infants b. Why, according to Warren, isn’t destroying a human fetus wrong for the same reasoning that destroying human infants is wrong? What rights of the pregnant woman come into play here, according to Warren? so long as the fetus is unborn, its preservation, contrary to the wishes of the pregnant woman, violates her rights to freedom, happiness, and self-determination c. Optional: What do you think Warren meant – how does the presence of a fetus within her violate the pregnant woman’s “rights to freedom, happiness, and self- determination”? d. Let’s focus on “happiness” – what additional “costs” must a pregnant woman endure in order to deliver a baby to a couple wanting to adopt that a mother of a newborn infant does not have to bear? How significant are these additional costs? months of discomfort and inconvenience culminating in the often intense and prolonged pain and health risks associated with labor. Very significant e. Describe the first version of Warren’s Couch Case and her assessment of it. Imagine someone is planning to burn a couch of theirs, when someone else asks them not to – they inform the couch owner that they would really love the couch and that they’ll come over right away and pick it up; Warren claims it would be wrong to destroy the couch in this case, and by analogy that infanticide is wrong when one could make others happen by giving up their infant for adoption instead f. Describe the second version of Warren’s Couch Case and her assessment of it.

Ethics: Dr. Zelinski

Imagine the person that wants the couch lives far away and wants the owner of the couch to pay to deliver the couch to them. ; , it would not be wrong to destroy the couch, since the owner is under no obligation to incur the necessary costs to make others happy

g. Sketch Warren’s argument for the moral permissibility of abortion as a valid, twopremise analogical argument from the second version of the couch case.

h. Optional: What do you think – how strong is this argument? do you agree that it would be wrong to destroy the couch in either case? Why (not)? how strong is the analogy? 7. Moderates – Seeking Middle Ground on Abortion a. Describe the “moderate position” with respect to abortion. some abortions are morally permissible and some are not. b. Describe the position of temporal moderates with respect to the issue of the personhood of fetuses. asserts that early abortions are morally permissible (since earlyterm fetuses are not persons), while late abortions are not permissible (since late-term fetuses are persons). c. List a couple examples of criteria temporal moderates employ? a heartbeat, “quickening”, viability, REM, among others. d. Optional: What do you think of these proposed criteria? e. Optional: Do you think that late term abortions are morally worse than early ones? Why (not)? f. How does Thomson respond to the traditional argument against abortion? How does her general approach differ from Warren’s? She believes that abortion is morally in three situation regardless of personhood. She completely avoids that subject g. Thomson argues for the moral permissibility of abortion in three cases. What are they? The woman’s life is in danger the pregnancy results from rape contraception is used and fails

8. Thomson’s Coat Argument a. Describe Thomson’s Coat Case.

Ethics: Dr. Zelinski

You are freezing to death in some remote wilderness. You are all alone except for one other person who is in possession of a coat which belongs to you. Either you will die or, if you take your coat from the other person, they will die. Is it morally permissible to take your coat? Does it matter how the other person came to be in possession of the coat? b. Explain the analogy here. Who do the coat owner and the coat possessor each represent? The Coat owner is a mother and the coat possessor is the fetus c. Sketch Warren’s analogical Coat Argument for moral permissibility of abortion when the pregnant woman’s life is in danger, as a valid TWO-premise argument. 1.To take your coat (in the Coat Case) irrespective of how the other person came to be in possession of it is morally permissible. 2.Abortion when the woman’s life is in danger (under the assumption that the fetus is a person) is relevantly similar to the Coat Case. 3.Therefore, abortion when the woman’s life is in danger is morally permissible, even assuming the fetus is a person. d. Optional: Do you agree that within the hypothetical case, it would be morally permissible for the owner of the coat to take back her coat? Why (not)? Would be morally permissible for a third party to give the coat back to the owner? If you think “it depends”, what does it depend on? e. Optional: assess the analogy here. Are there any relevant differences between this case and the real-life case it is meant to apply to? 9. Thomson’s Violinist Argument a. Describe Thomson’s Violinist Case. You awake to discover that you have been kidnapped and medically hooked up to a famous violinist. If you remain hooked up to the violinist for 9 months, he will survive some otherwise terminal disease. Remaining hooked up impedes your freedom, is an inconvenience, is uncomfortable, and is likely to cause you some intense pain for a short period of time. But, if you unhook yourself, the violinist will die. b. Explain the analogy here. Who do the violinist and the donor each represent? The violinist is the the fetus and the donor is the mother c. Sketch Warren’s analogical Violinist Argument for moral permissibility of abortion in cases of rape, as a valid TWO-premise argument 1.It would be morally permissible to disconnect yourself from the violinist (in the Violinist Case).

Ethics: Dr. Zelinski

2.Abortion in cases of rape (assuming the fetus is a person) is relevantly similar to the Violinist Case. 3.Therefore, Abortion in cases of rape is morally permissible. d. Optional: Do you agree that within the hypothetical case, it would be morally permissible for the person to unhook themself from the violinist? Why (not)? If you think “it depends”, what does it depend on? e. Optional: assess the analogy here. Are there any relevant differences between this case and the real-life case it is meant to apply to? 10. Bonus: Thomson’s Spore Argument a. Describe Thomson’s Spore Case. b. Do you agree that within the hypothetical case, it would be morally permissible for the person to “open their windows”? Why (not)? If you think “it depends”, what does it depend on? c. Explain the analogy here. Who do the home owner and spores each represent? d. Sketch and evaluate Warren’s analogical Spores Argument for moral permissibility of abortion in cases of failed contraception, as a valid TWO-premise argument...