In Defense of "A Defense of Abortion"

In her classic article "A Defense of Abortion," Judith Jarvis Thomson famously insists "that we grant that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception."  This seems a bold move and one that is very difficult to overcome while defending abortion, but Thomson, nevertheless, presents -- at the very least -- a strong case in support of abortion rights.  What are the most convincing parts of Thomson's argument? Why? Be sure to cite at least three reasons from the text of the article.  Defend your reasoning in no fewer than 10 sentences.

Abortion and Feminism: Sidney Callahan and Naomi Wolf

In "Abortion and the Sexual Agenda," Sidney Callahan controversially compares "debates... about the fetus... [to those] once conducted about feminine personhood."  Moreover, Callahan continues, "just as women, or blacks, were considered too different, too underdeveloped, too 'biological,'  to have souls or to possess legal rights, so the fetus is now seen as merely 'biological' life, subsidiary to a person."  "As the most recent immigrants from nonpersonhood, feminists" must rise up and protect similarly oppressed fetal life, Callahan concludes.

At the same time, Naomi Wolf polemically writes that "the pro-choice movement has relinquished the moral frame around the issue of abortion."  She continues, "the women who come to a clinic that is truly feminist -- that respects women -- are entitled not only to their abortions but also to their sense of sin."

Do you agree or disagree with Callahan's argument and Wolf's claims?  In a post of no fewer than TEN SENTENCES, please respond thoughtfully to these excerpts and this question.

Abortion: Warren and Marquis

You've now had a chance to consider the early parts of the the Roe v. Wade argument and, in particular, the arguments of two ethicists, Mary Anne Warren and Don Marquis, on the issue of abortion.  Clearly, Warren's 1973 article (written in the year of the Roe decision) and Marquis's 1989 article (written a year before the Supreme Court decided another landmark case regarding abortion) differ markedly.  Leaving aside your own personal beliefs, which essay (Warren's or Marquis's) do you find more effective?  Why?  Be sure to cite at least THREE times from the texts (three times altogether, not three times each) as you defend your rationale.

The Abortion Debate: Initial Reactions

During the next few weeks, we will be considering the issue of abortion intensively from a variety of perspectives -- ethical, religious, political, and legal.  We will attempt to enrich our conceptual vocabulary and improve our arguments about the issue in the coming days.  That said, it's always interesting to see where we're starting on such a controversial issue.  With this in mind, please take NO LESS than 10 sentences to answer the following questions:  What are your reactions to the Frontline documentary?  And what are your views on abortion? 

The Virtues

In both The Peaceable Kingdom and the excerpt we read from Hauerwas's A Community of Character, Hauerwas evokes Aquinas and Aristotle and contends that "there must first be a character that somehow has an affinity for excellence or virtue, a character that loves what is noble and feels disgust at what is base."  Hauerwas relies heavily on the virtues to defend his writing on the "Christian" ethical life.  In the writings of the ancient Greeks and medieval Church thinkers, philosophers and theologians traditionally recognized four cardinal virtues: 1) prudence (the ability to judge between actions with regard to appropriate actions at a given time); 2) justice (the proper moderation between self-interest and the rights and needs of others); 3) temperance (the practice of self-control, abstention, and moderation); and 4) courage (forbearance, endurance, and ability to confront fear and uncertainty, or intimidation).  You're an aspiring religious ethicist or theological writer attempting to craft new cardinal virtues for a new era.  What four values would you choose and why?

Living Amid Fragments and On the Brink of Confusion and Violence

In his opening chapter, Hauerwas writes that we "live in a precarious situation.  Life is always on the edge of violence, since there are no means to ensure that moral argument in itself can resolve our moral conflicts... Moreover the fragmentation of our world is not only 'out there,' but it is in our own souls.  Amid fragments it is extremely hard to maintain our moral identity.  We feel... unsure whether there is or can be any coherence to our lives.  We become divided selves, more tempted to violence..."  In other words, he paints a rather bleak landscape of the moral world we are encountering today. And, to be sure, in an increasingly polarized world (both politically and economically) in which we continue to bear witness to figurative and literal violence, things can look dire.  However, are things really that bleak in society and in ourselves?  Is there really so little hope in our quest to live moral lives?  Moreover, do you buy Hauerwas's argument?  Are we really that confused about morality today as a society and as individuals facing existential dilemmas? Please respond in at least 10 thoughtful sentences.

To Be Or Not To Be A Saint

Yesterday, we asked a basic question about whether PURITY should be an ideal and we wholeheartedly agreed that much of the answer to this question depended a great deal on how one defined the term purity.  In her article "Moral Saints," the philosopher Susan Wolf polemically writes "that moral perfection, in the sense of moral saintliness, DOES NOT constitute a model of personal well-being toward which it would be particularly rational or good or desirable for a human being to strive."  Wolf's statement certainly seems controversial.  Do you agree or disagree with her statement?  Shouldn't we at the very least strive for moral perfection?  If not, what should we aim for in life?  Please respond to this post in 7-10 thoughtful and well-written sentences.  Thank you and looking forward to reading your responses.

Rights: The Capacity to Suffer or The Capacity to Choose or Reason

Today in class we encountered questions that we will deal with throughout this course, especially when we enter debates about euthanasia and abortion, namely to whom do "rights" extend?  Should rights be based on the capacity to suffer (to experience pain, as Emi noted today) and thus more inclusive of other species or should rights be extended only to entities that have the capacity to reason or to choose (as Aldo pointed out)?  If rights should be granted to the former, then how should that affect how we live our lives on a day-to-day basis?  In composing your response, please craft an answer with 7-10 thoughtful and well-written sentences.  Thank you

Stephen Carter and the Relationship between Religion and Public Life in America

After reading the Foreword and Chapter One of Stephen Carter's The Culture of Disbelief, do you agree or disagree with Carter's view of the relationship between religion and public life in America today? In responding to this question, consider specific examples Carter mentions.  Does Carter offer a convincing reason why we should change or alter our approach to the way religion is discussed in public life? Please respond in at least 7-10 thoughtful sentences and include references to the book.

Religion and Morality

Can you have morality without religion? Are the two inherently linked? In composing your response, please craft an answer with 7-10 thoughtful and well-written sentences.  Thank you.