Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBingeman, Emily
dc.date.accessioned2011-09-09T18:13:24Z
dc.date.available2011-09-09T18:13:24Z
dc.date.issued2011-09-09
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10222/14269
dc.description.abstractArguments in the debate over abortion can, for the most part, be categorized as aiming to provide an answer to one of two questions: “Is abortion Immoral?”, and “Should abortion be legal?” I will argue that those wishing to make arguments in support of the Pro-Choice position ought to focus on providing an answer to the legal question rather than the moral one. I will argue for two claims in support of this thesis, first, that the current state of the debate over the answer to the moral question is one of reasonable disagreement; second, if we accept David Boonin’s methodology of appealing to one’s opponent on terms that she is likely to accept, then it makes sense for the Pro-Choicer to focus on answering the legal question.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectreasonable disagreementen_US
dc.subjectabortionen_US
dc.subjectpro-choiceen_US
dc.titleDIRECTING THE ABORTION DEBATEen_US
dc.date.defence2011-08-15
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Philosophyen_US
dc.contributor.degreeMaster of Artsen_US
dc.contributor.external-examinerDr. Kristen Borgersonen_US
dc.contributor.graduate-coordinatorDr. Letitia Meynellen_US
dc.contributor.thesis-readerDr. Mike Hymersen_US
dc.contributor.thesis-supervisorDr. Duncan MacIntoshen_US
dc.contributor.ethics-approvalNot Applicableen_US
dc.contributor.manuscriptsNot Applicableen_US
dc.contributor.copyright-releaseNot Applicableen_US
 Find Full text

Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record