dc.contributor.author | Bingeman, Emily | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2011-09-09T18:13:24Z | |
dc.date.available | 2011-09-09T18:13:24Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2011-09-09 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10222/14269 | |
dc.description.abstract | Arguments 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.iso | en | en_US |
dc.subject | reasonable disagreement | en_US |
dc.subject | abortion | en_US |
dc.subject | pro-choice | en_US |
dc.title | DIRECTING THE ABORTION DEBATE | en_US |
dc.date.defence | 2011-08-15 | |
dc.contributor.department | Department of Philosophy | en_US |
dc.contributor.degree | Master of Arts | en_US |
dc.contributor.external-examiner | Dr. Kristen Borgerson | en_US |
dc.contributor.graduate-coordinator | Dr. Letitia Meynell | en_US |
dc.contributor.thesis-reader | Dr. Mike Hymers | en_US |
dc.contributor.thesis-supervisor | Dr. Duncan MacIntosh | en_US |
dc.contributor.ethics-approval | Not Applicable | en_US |
dc.contributor.manuscripts | Not Applicable | en_US |
dc.contributor.copyright-release | Not Applicable | en_US |