Skip to main content

Illegalization of Abortion

Here’s my argument for why I think that the illegalization of abortion is philosophically problematic:

(P1) x is a human just in case x has a genetic code that is distinctively human.

(P2) A fetus, at some point in the fetal development, acquires a genetic code that is distinctively human.

(P3) So, at a certain point in the fetal development, a fetus becomes a bona fide human.

(P4) From a legal standpoint, the right to life of a human is protected by the law.

(P5) There is no characterization of a human that can objectively identify its instantiations other than the mere possession of a distinctively human genetic code.

(P6) So, a fetus, at a certain point in the fetal development, has the right to life that is protected by the law.

(P7) However, Judith Jarvis Thomson presents an argument that persuasively proves that the fact that the fetus has the right to life does not necessarily entail that it has the right to use the mother’s body.

(C) Therefore, even if a fetus has the right to life that is protected by the law, it’s not clear how such a fact can sufficiently justify the legal prohibition of abortion.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Affordable Care Act

For clear and concise analyses and evaluations of the issue pertaining to the constitutionality of the "Affordable Care Act," see Jeffrey Toobin's comment: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/07/09/120709taco_talk_toobin
Post a Comment
Read more

Creation vs. Evolution

While I was driving yesterday, I ended up listening to a Christian radio station. The hosts with a special guest pointed out how creationist students are persecuted by evolutionist professors. The special guest who was a former student in a secular university exaggeratedly related a story about a biology professor who would not write a recommendation letter for a student who did not affirm the truth of the theory of evolution. While I was listening, it dawned on me what exactly is the problem with the perspectives of fundamentalist creationists and dogmatic evolutionists. It appears to me that both of them are confused about the nature of a theory (especially a scientific one). I usually hear creationists claiming that the theory of evolution is a mere philosophical theory. So, they claim that it is not intellectually superior to creationism. On the other hand, evolutionists usually claim that the theory of evolution is actually a scientific theory, while creationism is a mere religiou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Nazarenes and Evolution

I am not a Nazarene, but I received my undergraduate degree from a Nazarene college. There's something admirable about how the Nazarene Church as a denomination is responding to the theory of evolution. It should serve as a model for other evangelical denominations. http://www.exploringevolution.com/
Post a Comment
Read more