Name non-speciesit theorists
Marquis-loss of future like ours extends to non-human being
Gregory-speaks to issue of inhumane treatment of any species of of physically sentient creatures
Roe vs. Wade
-states person as included in 14th Amendment does not include unborn ("life does not begin until live birth," "unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense")
v. Planned Parenthood in 1992
-upheld that 1. women give informed consent prior to procedure, 2. info be provided to her at least 24 hours before, 3. informed consent of one parent be required for minor, w/judicial by-pass if necessary. Struck down: provision requiring married women to sign a statement of notification of spouse.
-affirmed that Roe's basic liberty is unchanged and unthreatened and there is no other line in which liberty is more workable...and that interest in potential life has not been sufficiently dealt w/ or acknowledged
-*undue burden*-not all restriction on abortion pose undue burden
-reject strict trimester rule of Roe
-physically sentient creatures (fetuses over 8 weeks) ought not to be treated inhumanely
-focuses on humanity vs personhood
-essence of humanity is brain function
-abortion before brain function does not kill a human being in the moral sense
-justifies abortion only before 12 weeks
some abortions are justified killings of a person
-having right to life does not guarantee right to be allowed continued use of another person's body
"abortion except in rare cases is immoral'
whether or not is it immoral falls on whether fetus is being whose life is wrong to end
both pro/against abortion fail to look the essence of wrongfulness of killing. what makes killing wrong?loss of his/her future "standard fetus"-neurologically normal w/brain capacity to mentally value one's future. talks about quality of life reasons for killing.
Gonzales vs Carhart
-looks at validity of partial birth abortion/intact d&e ban in 2003. there were 2 earlier bans
-6 reasons given by court for upholding ban: 1)It's not vague, 2. restricting single procedure does not impose undue burden on abortion liberty (casey's legal standard), 3. applies only to intact d&e, 4) allows medical board hearing for an accused physician who claims attempt to save mother's life, 5. the woman may not be prosecuted, 6. lack of health exception is acceptable bc there are other safe alternatives for the woman
Short forms of abortion arguments
constitution protects persons fetuses are not persons in whole sense therefore constitution does not protect fetuses.
Liberty-constitution protects liberty/liberty implies privacy and therefore constitution protects privacy
speciesist-it is always wrong to kill innocent human, fetus is innocent human and therefore it's always wrong to kill fetus.
Brody's response to Thomson
-women's right to control her body (which is a right) does not justify killing
-life of the mother circumstance of abortion is not equal to self defense bc fetus is not an aggressor
-Thomson's violinist analogy not same bc difference btw not saving a life and taking a life
Which theorists are compromise theorists? How do they compromise?
Thomson-no abortion for convenience
Brody-justifies abortion only before 12 weeks
Ginsburg dissent in Gonzales case
-upholding ban injures precedents of Casey and Stenberg
-procedure previously sanctioned by ACOG
-blurs line between pre viability and post viability
-blesses prohibition with no exception safe guarding woman's health
-objects using anatomical position of fetus to distinguish infanticide from abortion
-criticizes focus on method of abortion/utilitarian argument