PRESENT 

CENTRAL ARGUMENT

(1)    The fetus is a human in the moral sense.

(2)    If (1), the fetus has a right to life.

4. [So] abortion is prima facie wrong. 

EXPLAIN

CENTRAL ARGUMENT

When saying the fetus is “human in the moral sense” premise (1) is inferring that the fetus is a person and has rights. Since it has rights premise (2) says the right to life is included. If the fetus has a right to life, then abortion is wrong and thus all in all, abortion is prima facie wrong, or wrong until there is a conflict of rights. 

PRESENT/EXPLAIN

SPECIES CRITERION

PRESENT: something is a person iff it is homo sapien.

EXPLAIN: Simply, you have to have human DNA to be considered a person. 

EVALUATE

SPECIES CRITERION

PERSISTENT VEGETATION STATE OBJECTION:

Someone has a functioning body, but no brain activity and thus is unfit to make own decisions and is no longer capable of being self aware or rational.  

ALIEN OBJECTION:

argument doesn’t take into account other unknown life forms such as aliens that could possess C and thus be considered persons.

*CRITERION MAKES ARGUMENT TRUE AND SOUND*

PRESENT/EXPLAIN

MODIFIED SPECIES CRITERION

PRESENT: 

something is a person iff it is a member of a species generally characterized by C.

EXPLAIN:

something has to DNA in a species where the usual member possesses C. This modified version avoids the Alien Objection presented earlier but raises more problems 

"C"

self aware, rational, emotions, etc.

EVALUATE

MODIFIED SPECIES CRITERION

GENERAL/PARTICULAR OBJECTION:

the argument generalizes a population, when what should really matter is the individual.

SUPER-FIDO OBJECTION:

Say for example a crazy scientist makes an incredible dog that is capable of C. Super-Fido’s species is generally not characterized by C, but since Super-Fido is, he ought to have the same rights as other persons. 

*CRITERION MAKES ARGUMENT TRUE & SOUND*

PRESENT/EXPLAIN

POTENTIAL POSSESSION CRITERION

PRESENT:

something is a person iff it either actually or potentially possesses C.

EXPLAIN:

any being possessing C or given the correct circumstances can potentially possess C has rights.

EVALUATE

POTENTIAL POSSESSION CRITERION

LOGICAL OBJECTION:

According to the Potential Possession Criterion, one could say “Hilary Clinton is a potential president, so Hilary Clinton has the rights of the president.” When in actuality, Hilary Clinton is not granted the rights of the president simply for being a candidate to be the next.

VAGUENESS OBJECTION:

questions what is exactly meant by “potential”. There is no clear line on where the cutoff is for something to be considered to have potential to possess C. This criterion allows people to argue that sperm and unfertilized eggs essentially have the potential to possess C.

*CRITERION MAKES ARGUMENT TRUE & SOUND* 

PRESENT/EXPLAIN

ACTUAL POSSESSION CRITERION

PRESENT:

something is a person iff it actually possesses C.

EXPLAIN:

pretty straight forward, the only way you have rights if you possess C.

EVALUATE

ACTUAL POSSESSION CRITERION

BLACKOUT OBJECTION:

Take any “normal” human being for example, and they get knocked out for various reasons, ball to the head, boxing match, whatever. Since at that current time they don’t possess C, they no longer have any rights. That’s a bit ridiculous. 

INFANTICIDE OBJECTION:

newborn babies don’t possess C and thus have no right to life.

*CRITERION MAKES PREMISE 1 FALSE AND ARGUMENT UNSOUND* 

VOLUNTARY

INVOLUNTARY

NON-VOLUNTARY

VOLUNTARY:

a patient has to request to be euthanized, someone with a terminal disease my request to be euthanized to prevent further agonizing pain.

INVOLUNTARY:

a patient being euthanized against their request, this is considered murder. 

NON-VOLUNTARY:

patient has not made a request either way. For example, if someone was unexpectedly in a car accident and became brain dead, they aren’t able to inform anyone of their wishes.

ACTIVE

PASSIVE

ACTIVE:

killing someone for humane reasons such as incurable cancer that creates unbearable pain on a daily basis. 

PASSIVE:

letting someone die, for example removing artificial means of sustaining one’s life such as breathing machines.

PRESENT

UTILITARIAN ARGUMENT

(1)    Killing Jack would maximize the overall ratio of pleasure to pain.

3. [So] Killing Jack would be right. 

EXPLAIN

UTILITARIAN ARGUMENT

Premise (1) is inferring that killing Jack will result in no more pain for Jack, his wife no longer having to watch helplessly as he dies, more money for his wife to use on other things, and literally no more Jack. This being said, the ratio of pleasure to pain would be maximized. Premise (2) is following the Utilitarian point of view that the only thing of intrinsic value is pleasure (happiness) and the only thing of intrinsic disvalue is pain (unhappiness); an act is right if and only if it maximizes the overall ratio of pleasure to pain.  Thus, killing Jack would be right. 

EVALUATE

UTILITARIAN ARGUMENT

OBJECTION FROM RIGHTS:

Just because the benefits or means of pleasure would be higher if they were to kill Jack, doesn’t mean that they should go through with it. Jack could possibly not want to die, maybe he does not believe in euthanasia and that he should just let nature run its course. Or maybe he just enjoys excruciating pain on a daily basis, who knows. Either way, Jack deserves a say in what is done with his life.

PRESENT

BEST INTEREST ARGUMENT

(1)    If Jack wants to die (and the relevant parties agree), then killing him would be in everyone’s best interests (i.e., it would maximize the overall ratio of pleasure to pain without violating anyone’s rights).

3. [So] If Jack wants to die (and all relevant parties agree), then killing him would be right. 

EXPLAIN

BEST INTEREST ARGUMENT

pretty straight forward and the premises explain themselves. Premise (1) states that is everyone agrees with Jack’s wish to die, then it is everyone’s best interests in terms of utilitarianism by maximizing the overall ratio of pleasure to pain. Premise (2) says that since it’s in everyone’s best interests, it’s the right thing to do. 

EVALUATE

BEST INTEREST ARGUMENT

INALIENABLE OBJECTION:

This is the simple fact that we all have inalienable rights. We have a right to life and we are stuck with it whether we want to be or not. If anyone were to take his life, regardless of his wishes, you are violating his rights. This objection is weak in the sense that Jack has many other rights as well such as the right to bodily autonomy; it’s Jack’s right what is done to his body so the two views conflict with one another. 

PRESENT

"PLAYING GOD" ARGUMENT

(1)    Active euthanasia amounts to “playing God”, since it prevents one from dying at the appointed time.

3. [So] Active euthanasia is wrong. 

EXPLAIN

"PLAYING GOD" ARGUMENT

Premise (1) is saying that any form of euthanasia that is considered “active” or deliberately killing for humane reasons, results in someone “playing God”, or determining the fate of another. Premise (2) says that it is wrong to play God and infers that only God has the right or the power to control the “appointed time” of someone’s death. 

EVALUATE

"PLAYING GOD" ARGUMENT

CURES OBJECTION:

Doctors theoretically “play God” all the time with medicine by means of pro-longing or saving lives. By doing so they are tampering with one’s “appointed time” to die. If it is morally okay to enable to avoid death, then why is it not morally okay to encourage it by the means of euthanasia? Another question that can be raised is how to we know that active euthanasia isn’t a part of God’s plan? That he knew humans would discover the means of “creating” euthanasia in order to escape the living world?

PRESENT

UNEXPECTED CURES ARGUMENT

(1)    Active euthanasia would only be right in those cases where we know that there is no hope of recovery.

3. [So] there are no cases in which active euthanasia is right. 

EXPLAIN

UNEXPECTED CURES ARGUMENT

Premise (1) is pretty straight forward in saying that active euthanasia would only be acceptable to perform only in situations where we were almost positive that there was no hope of recovery. The following premise states that there are no such cases where we are certain that there is no hope of recovery, thus leading into the conclusion that there are no cases where active euthanasia is right. 

EVALUATE

UNEXPECTED CURES OBJECTION

EQUIVOCATION OBJECTION

The double standard of the word “know” used in the premises leads to The Equivocation Objection. Premise (1) can only be true if “know” is read to mean “well enough” or “almost positive” because it can never be known for certain that there is no hope of recovery. The second premise can only be true if “know” is used as “certain” because there are cases where we are almost positive that there is no hope of recovery, but none where we are certain such as the case of Zach Dunlap who miraculously fought himself out of what was thought to be an irreversible coma. 

PRESENT/EXPLAIN

PROPERTY VIEW

PRESENT:

right to an abortion is a property right.

EXPLAIN:

implies that the fetus is the mother’s property since it is growing inside her and its survival is dependent on the mother’s uterus. The property view also implies that the mother’s property right outweighs the fetus’ right to life. 

EVALUATE

PROPERTY VIEW

E-BAY OBJECTION

You can buy, sell, and trade any and all property through networks such as E-Bay or Craigslist. However, you can’t take a fetus and buy sell or trade it like other property so the fetus shouldn’t be considered as such. 

WEAKNESS OBJECTION

When you compare the right to life and property right, the right to life will win hands down every time, so when the view suggests that the property right outweighs the right to life, it is mistaken. 

PRESENT/EXPLAIN

SELF-DEFENSE VIEW

PRESENT:

the right to an abortion is a right to self-defense.

EXPLAIN:

EVALUATE

SELF-DEFENSE VIEW

KILL OR BE KILLED OBJECTION

notes that the fetus isn’t in a “kill or be killed” situation. In most cases, the mother will not lose her life due to pregnancy/birth but rather, her lifestyle will be changed.

INNOCENT NON-AGGRESSOR OBJECTION

after conception, there is now a 3^rd party involved (fetus) and thus it’s no longer considered self defense because the fetus is a non-aggressor.

*EXPLAIN TANK BABY SCENARIO* 

PRESENT/EXPLAIN

AUTONOMY VIEW

PRESENT:

the right to an abortion is a right to bodily autonomy.

EXPLAIN:

you have the right about what goes on inside (or outside) to your body. If you don’t want something growing in there (fetus) then you have that right to not let. 

PRESENT

FIRST ARGUMENT BY ANALOGY

(1)    It isn’t wrong for you to disconnect the famous violinist.

3. [So] It isn’t wrong for the pregnant woman to abort the fetus. 

EVALUATE

FIRST ARGUMENT BY ANALOGY

INCONVENIENCE OBJECTION:

Violinist case only last 9 months strapped to a hospital bed; a mother and fetus last 9 months of living life plus the rest of their lives.

KILLING VS. LETTING DIE OBJECTION:

In violinist, natural course is he will die, so if you say no, you're just letting him die, not killing him. in pregnancy, natural course is fetus will live so you're killing someone. 

INVOLUNTARINESS OBJECTION:

In violinist, you didn't put yourself in situation, you were there against your own will. In typical pregnancy, you know the possible outcomes.

UNFAMILIAR OBJECTION:

Violinist is a stranger vs. a mother and fetus being more intimate. mothers have a "special obligation" to one's children.

PRESENT

SECOND ARGUMENT BY ANALOGY

(1)    It isn’t wrong for you to vacuum up the pod person.

3. [So] It isn’t wrong for the pregnant woman to abort the fetus.