How do we argue about abortion? How do we think and speak clearly about a topic that evokes such strong reactions?
One approach is to think dialectically–to critically examine arguments pro or con, in order to uncover the assumptions and grounds they rest on, and develop new arguments that respond to the faults we find in our prior positions.
In keeping with Political Animal Magazine’s mission to publish articles with philosophic insight from genuinely different perspectives, we are proud to present two pieces here, from very different viewpoints, that both aim to think through problems in how we argue about abortion.
In one article, Nathan Nobis and Kristina Grob, in an excerpt from their recent free book Thinking Critically About Abortion: Why Most Abortions Aren’t Wrong & Why All Abortions Should be Legal (Open Philosophy Press, 2019), examine the moral significance of early fetuses lacking consciousness or feeling, critique arguments that assign personhood to fetuses, and work through the claims inherent in the idea of a right to life.
Full article here: Philosophical Arguments for Abortion
In another, Hendrik van der Breggen takes a pro-life position, critiquing a number of opposing arguments to a high degree of scrutiny. Both articles present the kinds of arguments that people wishing to think seriously about abortion will have to consider.