PHIL 1104 Final
Here are flashcards based on the text you provided:
Flashcard 1:
Q: What was the significance of Roe v. Wade regarding abortion?
A: Roe v. Wade required states to permit abortions during the first two trimesters and allowed states to regulate abortion during the third trimester. However, less than 1% of abortions occur in the last trimester.
Flashcard 2:
Q: What is the "Argument from Humanity" against abortion?
A: The "Argument from Humanity" claims that if a fetus is an innocent human being, abortion is always immoral. The argument has two premises:
If the fetus is an innocent human being, abortion is immoral.
The fetus is an innocent human being.
Therefore, abortion is immoral.
Flashcard 3:
Q: What is a key issue with the "Argument from Humanity"?
A: The term "human being" is ambiguous. If "human being" is defined biologically, the argument begs the question against pro-choice advocates, as they might argue that the moral rule applies only to "persons," not biological humans.
Flashcard 4:
Q: How do pro-choice advocates respond to the "Argument from Humanity"?
A: Pro-choice advocates argue that the moral rule against killing innocents protects "persons"—beings with rationality, self-awareness, emotions, and the ability to communicate. Fetuses, especially in early stages, lack these characteristics.
Flashcard 5:
Q: What is the "Argument from Potential" in the context of abortion?
A: The "Argument from Potential" claims that if a fetus has the potential to be a person, it has the same moral status as a person, including the right to life, which means abortion is immoral.
Flashcard 6:
Q: What is a problem with the "Argument from Potential"?
A: The principle (P) "If X has the potential to be Y, then X has the same moral status as Y" is flawed. For example, someone with the potential to become president doesn't have the moral status of a president.
Flashcard 7:
Q: What is the "Argument from Ensoulment"?
A: The "Argument from Ensoulment" posits that it is immoral to kill any innocent being with a soul. It claims that all human fetuses have souls and thus abortion is always immoral.
Flashcard 8:
Q: What are the issues with the "Argument from Ensoulment"?
A: If the soul is defined as a personality, fetuses lack personalities. Religious views might claim fetuses have souls, but this leads to questions about the nature of the soul and whether God prohibits abortion.
Flashcard 9:
Q: What is the "Infanticide Argument"?
A: The "Infanticide Argument" suggests that if infanticide is immoral, abortion is also immoral. It uses sorites reasoning: if killing a newborn is wrong, then killing a fetus is also wrong, as the difference in time is morally insignificant.
Flashcard 10:
Q: What is sorites reasoning, and how does it apply to the "Infanticide Argument"?
A: Sorites reasoning involves a vague concept (like "heap"). It argues that small differences (like time between fetus and newborn) don't matter morally. Thus, if infanticide is immoral, so is abortion.
Flashcard 11:
Q: What is the problem with sorites reasoning in the context of abortion?
A: Sorites reasoning leads to paradoxes. For instance, it suggests there’s no clear moral line between a fetus and a newborn, but we accept that there are morally significant differences, even if we can’t pinpoint the exact moment of change.
Flashcard 12:
Q: What is the "Argument from Personhood"?
A: The "Argument from Personhood" claims that if a being is not a person, it lacks moral rights. Fetuses aren't persons, so they lack moral rights, and thus it’s morally acceptable to terminate a pregnancy.
Flashcard 13:
Q: What is a major issue with the "Argument from Personhood"?
A: If fetuses lack moral rights because they aren't persons, then infants, who also aren't persons in the same sense, would lack rights too. This leads to the contradiction that infanticide could be morally acceptable.
Flashcard 14:
Q: How does the "Argument from Personhood" relate to the "Infanticide Argument"?
A: The "Argument from Personhood" permits abortion, but it also seems to permit infanticide, which creates a contradiction. The pro-choice position is challenged by the idea that if abortion is acceptable, infanticide might be too.
Flashcard 15:
Q: What is Judith Jarvis Thomson’s contribution to the abortion debate?
A: Thomson argued that even if fetuses have a right to life, abortion may still be morally permissible. She presented an analogy involving a violinist to challenge the idea that a right to life requires a person to sustain that life.
Flashcard 16:
Q: What is the "Argument from Analogy" as presented by Thomson?
A: The "Argument from Analogy" compares a pregnant woman to someone attached to a violinist. If it’s morally permissible to disconnect from the violinist, then it may be morally permissible to terminate a pregnancy, even if the fetus has a right to life.
Flashcard 17:
Q: What is the principle (R) that supports Thomson’s Argument from Analogy?
A: Principle (R) states: "If you bear no moral responsibility for putting others in a life-threatening situation, then you are not morally required to undertake a significant sacrifice to keep them alive." This supports the right to terminate a pregnancy if the woman didn’t consent.
Here are more flashcards based on the additional material you provided:
Flashcard 1:
Q: What is the concern with applying the violinist analogy to consensual sex pregnancies?
A: The violinist analogy, which is used to justify abortion in cases of rape, seems less applicable to consensual pregnancies. In consensual cases, the woman may bear some moral responsibility for the pregnancy, as she knowingly engaged in sex, even with birth control.
Flashcard 2:
Q: How does Thomson respond to the moral responsibility in consensual pregnancies?
A: Thomson argues that a woman is not required to take every possible precaution to avoid pregnancy, only reasonable precautions. If she uses reliable birth control, she has done all that is reasonably required to prevent pregnancy and is not morally responsible for it.
Flashcard 3:
Q: What does principle (R) state in the context of abortion?
A: Principle (R) asserts: "If you bear no moral responsibility for putting others in a life-threatening situation, then you are not morally required to undertake a significant sacrifice to keep them alive." Thomson uses this principle to justify abortion in cases where a woman did not cause the pregnancy through negligence.
Flashcard 4:
Q: What is a potential problem with Thomson’s argument in cases where a woman has some moral responsibility for her pregnancy?
A: Thomson’s argument may not justify abortion when a woman has some moral responsibility for the pregnancy, such as when she chooses to engage in consensual sex without contraception, as she bears some responsibility for the potential consequences.
Flashcard 5:
Q: What is the "Protection of Interests Argument" for abortion?
A: The "Protection of Interests Argument" asserts that if the only way to protect a person’s very important, morally legitimate interests is by killing a nonperson (e.g., a fetus), then it is morally permissible to do so.
Flashcard 6:
Q: What is the first premise of the "Protection of Interests Argument"?
A: The first premise is: "If the only way to protect a person’s very important, morally legitimate interests is by killing a nonperson, then it is permissible to do so." This premise suggests that abortion may be morally permissible in cases where a woman’s interests are threatened by the pregnancy.
Flashcard 7:
Q: How does the "Protection of Interests Argument" apply to unwanted pregnancies?
A: In most cases of unwanted pregnancies, the only way for a woman to protect her very important and morally legitimate interests (such as her freedom, health, and life choices) is to have an abortion, making it permissible under this argument.
Flashcard 8:
Q: How does the viability of a fetus affect the "Protection of Interests Argument"?
A: The argument does not permit abortion once a fetus is viable (able to survive outside the womb), because at that point, other options like a Cesarean section may be available to protect the woman’s interests without needing to kill the fetus.
Flashcard 9:
Q: What is the second premise of the "Protection of Interests Argument"?
A: The second premise is: "In almost all cases of unwanted pregnancies, the only way to protect a woman’s very important, morally legitimate interests is by killing the nonperson—the fetus." This premise justifies abortion when a woman's interests cannot be otherwise protected.
Flashcard 10:
Q: What does the "Protection of Interests Argument" say about a woman’s interests in a pregnancy?
A: The argument asserts that a woman’s interests in living a life as she chooses and plans—according to her own conception of what is valuable—are very important and morally legitimate, thus justifying abortion to protect those interests.
Flashcard 11:
Q: What does the "Protection of Interests Argument" say about cases of abortion after viability?
A: The argument suggests that once a fetus is viable, abortion is not justified simply to protect the woman's interests, as alternatives like Cesarean sections are possible, which can preserve the fetus's life while addressing the woman's needs.
Flashcard 12:
Q: What types of cases might falsify the first premise of the "Protection of Interests Argument"?
A: The first premise would be false if there is a case where a person’s very important, morally legitimate interests could be protected only by killing a nonperson, but doing so would still be immoral. The challenge is to find such a case.
Flashcard 13:
Q: What is the main concern with the "Protection of Interests Argument"?
A: The main concern is whether there could be a case where killing a nonperson (like a fetus) to protect a person’s interests would be immoral. If such a counterexample exists, it would undermine the argument.
Flashcard 14:
Q: How do critics view the argument for abortion based on the fetus’s humanity?
A: Critics argue that opponents of abortion often rely on the fetus’s humanity as grounds for restricting abortion but fail to acknowledge the ambiguity of what it means for a fetus to be "human" or "human-like." This argument does not adequately address the moral complexities of abortion.
Flashcard 15:
Q: How does Don Marquis criticize abortion?
A: Don Marquis offers a critique of abortion that is based on the wrongness of killing, not simply on the fetus's potential. His critique challenges both the "Argument from Humanity" and "Argument from Potential," arguing that the wrongness of killing a fetus is independent of whether it is a potential person.
Flashcard 16:
Q: What is the structural issue with the "line-drawing argument" against abortion?
A: The "line-drawing argument" against abortion suggests that it’s difficult to determine when a fetus gains the right to life. This is a form of sorites reasoning, which leads to an unsound conclusion, as the absence of a clear line does not necessarily invalidate the moral distinctions we make.
Flashcard 17:
Q: What does Judith Thomson argue about the fetus’s right to life in relation to abortion?
A: Judith Thomson argues that the morality of abortion does not hinge on whether the fetus has a right to life. Her argument challenges the traditional assumption that the fetus’s right to life automatically overrides a woman’s right to control her body.
These flashcards cover the main points of the arguments and counterarguments presented in the text. They focus on Thomson's views, the Protection of Interests Argument, and various criticisms of abortion from both sides. Let me know if you need any adjustments or further cards!