Coverart for item
The Resource A defense of abortion, David Boonin

A defense of abortion, David Boonin

Label
A defense of abortion
Title
A defense of abortion
Statement of responsibility
David Boonin
Creator
Subject
Language
eng
Summary
The most thorough and detailed case for the moral permissibility of abortion yet published
Member of
Cataloging source
DLC
http://library.link/vocab/creatorName
Boonin, David
Illustrations
illustrations
Index
index present
LC call number
HQ767.15
LC item number
.B66 2003
Literary form
non fiction
Nature of contents
bibliography
Series statement
Cambridge studies in philosophy and public policy
http://library.link/vocab/subjectName
Abortion
Label
A defense of abortion, David Boonin
Instantiates
Publication
Bibliography note
Includes bibliographical references (pages 325-343) and index
Carrier category
volume
Carrier category code
nc
Carrier MARC source
rdacarrier
Content category
text
Content type code
txt
Content type MARC source
rdacontent
Contents
  • p. 6.
  • p. 97.
  • 3.4.
  • Perceived Fetal Movement (Quickening)
  • p. 98.
  • 3.5.
  • Initial Brain Activity
  • p. 98.
  • 3.5.1.
  • The
  • Brain
  • 1.2.
  • p. 99.
  • 3.5.2.
  • The
  • Cerebral Cortex
  • p. 102.
  • 3.5.3.
  • The
  • Initial Brain Activity Criterion
  • p. 104.
  • 3.5.4.
  • The
  • The
  • Symmetry Argument
  • p. 112.
  • 3.6.
  • Organized Cortical Brain Activity
  • p. 115.
  • 3.6.1.
  • The
  • Proposal
  • p. 115.
  • Method
  • 3.6.2.
  • Rival Arguments
  • p. 116.
  • 3.6.3.
  • The
  • Modified Future-Like-Ours Argument
  • p. 122.
  • 3.6.4.
  • The
  • Gray Area
  • p. 9.
  • p. 127.
  • 3.7.
  • Viability
  • p. 129.
  • 4.
  • The
  • Good Samaritan Argument
  • p. 133.
  • 4.2.
  • The
  • 1.2.1.
  • Weirdness Objection
  • p. 139.
  • 4.3.
  • The
  • Tacit Consent Objection
  • p. 148.
  • 4.3.1.
  • Consent versus Responsibility
  • p. 148.
  • 4.3.2.
  • Reflective Equilibrium
  • The
  • Significance of the Objection
  • p. 150.
  • 4.3.3.
  • The
  • Objection's Two Claims
  • p. 153.
  • 4.3.4.
  • Rejecting the First Claim
  • p. 154.
  • p. 9.
  • 4.3.5.
  • Rejecting the Second Claim
  • p. 164.
  • 4.4.
  • The
  • Responsibility Objection
  • p. 167.
  • 4.4.1.
  • Two Senses of Responsibility
  • p. 168.
  • 1.2.2.
  • 4.4.2.
  • The
  • Significance of the Distinction
  • p. 172.
  • 4.4.3.
  • Three Objections
  • p. 175.
  • 4.5.
  • The
  • Killing versus Letting Die Objection
  • Reflective Equilibrium and Abortion
  • p. 188.
  • 4.5.2.
  • Letting the Fetus Die
  • p. 193.
  • 4.5.3.
  • Killing the Fetus
  • p. 199.
  • 4.5.4.
  • Two Objections
  • p. 204.
  • 1.
  • p. 13.
  • 4.6.
  • The
  • Intending versus Foreseeing Objection
  • p. 212.
  • 4.6.1.
  • The
  • Objection
  • p. 212.
  • 4.6.2.
  • Intentionally Letting the Fetus Die
  • 1.3.
  • p. 215.
  • 4.6.3.
  • Intentionally Killing the Fetus
  • p. 221.
  • 4.7.
  • The
  • Stranger versus Offspring Objection
  • p. 227.
  • 4.8.
  • The
  • The
  • Adult versus Infant Objection
  • p. 234.
  • 4.9.
  • The
  • Different Burdens Objection
  • p. 236.
  • 4.10.
  • The
  • Organ Ownership Objection
  • p. 242.
  • Arguments
  • 4.11.
  • The
  • Child Support Objection
  • p. 246.
  • 4.12.
  • The
  • Extraction versus Abortion Objection
  • p. 254.
  • 4.13.
  • The
  • p. 14.
  • Third-Party Objection
  • p. 260.
  • 4.14.
  • The
  • Feminist Objection
  • p. 262.
  • 4.14.1.
  • The
  • Ignoring Patriarchy Version
  • p. 263.
  • 1.3.1.
  • 4.14.2.
  • The
  • Selfishness Version
  • p. 265.
  • 4.15.
  • The
  • Duty to Save the Violinist Objection
  • p. 266.
  • 4.15.1.
  • The
  • The
  • Conscription Version
  • p. 267.
  • 4.15.2.
  • The
  • Involuntary Samaritan Version
  • p. 268.
  • 4.15.3.
  • The
  • Justification versus Excuse Version
  • p. 269.
  • Rights-Based Argument
  • 4.15.4.
  • The
  • Consequentialist Version
  • p. 271.
  • 4.16.
  • The
  • Compensation Objection
  • p. 273.
  • 4.17.
  • The
  • p. 14.
  • Inconsistency Objection
  • p. 274.
  • 4.18.
  • Some Puzzles Resolved
  • p. 276.
  • 5.
  • Non-Rights-Based Arguments
  • p. 282.
  • 5.1.
  • The
  • 1.3.2.
  • Golden Rule Argument
  • p. 283.
  • 5.1.1.
  • Hare's Version
  • p. 284.
  • 5.1.2.
  • Gensler's Version
  • p. 289.
  • 5.2.
  • The
  • Framing the Debate
  • Non-Rights-Based Arguments
  • Culture of Death Argument
  • p. 298.
  • 5.3.
  • The
  • Pro-Life Feminist Argument
  • p. 300.
  • 5.4.
  • The
  • Uncertainty Argument
  • p. 310.
  • p. 18.
  • 5.4.1.
  • Three Versions of the Argument
  • p. 312.
  • 5.4.2.
  • Three Objections
  • p. 314
  • 2.
  • The
  • Conception Criterion
  • p. 19.
  • 2.1.
  • The
  • Parsimony Argument
  • p. 20.
  • p. 1.
  • 2.2.
  • The
  • Species Essence Argument
  • p. 23.
  • 2.3.
  • The
  • Kindred Species Argument
  • p. 26.
  • 2.4.
  • The
  • 1.1.1.
  • Sanctity of Human Life Argument
  • p. 27.
  • 2.5.
  • The
  • Slippery Slope Argument
  • p. 33.
  • 2.6.
  • The
  • Potentiality Argument
  • p. 45.
  • Framing the Question
  • 2.7.
  • The
  • Essential Property Argument
  • p. 49.
  • 2.8.
  • The
  • Future-Like-Ours Argument
  • p. 56.
  • 2.8.1.
  • The
  • p. 3.
  • Argument
  • p. 57.
  • 2.8.2.
  • The
  • Challenge
  • p. 62.
  • 2.8.3.
  • Occurrent versus Dispositional Desires
  • p. 64.
  • 2.8.4.
  • 1.1.2.
  • Actual versus Ideal Desires
  • p. 70.
  • 2.8.5.
  • Implications
  • p. 79.
  • 2.9.
  • The
  • Probability Argument
  • p. 85.
  • 3.
  • Three Objections
  • Postconception Criteria
  • p. 91.
  • 3.1.
  • Implantation
  • p. 92.
  • 3.2.
  • External Human Form
  • p. 95.
  • 3.3.
  • Actual Fetal Movement
Control code
49225692
Dimensions
24 cm
Extent
xvi, 350 pages
Isbn
9780521520355
Isbn Type
(pbk.)
Lccn
2002022282
Media category
unmediated
Media MARC source
rdamedia
Media type code
n
Other physical details
illustrations
Label
A defense of abortion, David Boonin
Publication
Bibliography note
Includes bibliographical references (pages 325-343) and index
Carrier category
volume
Carrier category code
nc
Carrier MARC source
rdacarrier
Content category
text
Content type code
txt
Content type MARC source
rdacontent
Contents
  • p. 6.
  • p. 97.
  • 3.4.
  • Perceived Fetal Movement (Quickening)
  • p. 98.
  • 3.5.
  • Initial Brain Activity
  • p. 98.
  • 3.5.1.
  • The
  • Brain
  • 1.2.
  • p. 99.
  • 3.5.2.
  • The
  • Cerebral Cortex
  • p. 102.
  • 3.5.3.
  • The
  • Initial Brain Activity Criterion
  • p. 104.
  • 3.5.4.
  • The
  • The
  • Symmetry Argument
  • p. 112.
  • 3.6.
  • Organized Cortical Brain Activity
  • p. 115.
  • 3.6.1.
  • The
  • Proposal
  • p. 115.
  • Method
  • 3.6.2.
  • Rival Arguments
  • p. 116.
  • 3.6.3.
  • The
  • Modified Future-Like-Ours Argument
  • p. 122.
  • 3.6.4.
  • The
  • Gray Area
  • p. 9.
  • p. 127.
  • 3.7.
  • Viability
  • p. 129.
  • 4.
  • The
  • Good Samaritan Argument
  • p. 133.
  • 4.2.
  • The
  • 1.2.1.
  • Weirdness Objection
  • p. 139.
  • 4.3.
  • The
  • Tacit Consent Objection
  • p. 148.
  • 4.3.1.
  • Consent versus Responsibility
  • p. 148.
  • 4.3.2.
  • Reflective Equilibrium
  • The
  • Significance of the Objection
  • p. 150.
  • 4.3.3.
  • The
  • Objection's Two Claims
  • p. 153.
  • 4.3.4.
  • Rejecting the First Claim
  • p. 154.
  • p. 9.
  • 4.3.5.
  • Rejecting the Second Claim
  • p. 164.
  • 4.4.
  • The
  • Responsibility Objection
  • p. 167.
  • 4.4.1.
  • Two Senses of Responsibility
  • p. 168.
  • 1.2.2.
  • 4.4.2.
  • The
  • Significance of the Distinction
  • p. 172.
  • 4.4.3.
  • Three Objections
  • p. 175.
  • 4.5.
  • The
  • Killing versus Letting Die Objection
  • Reflective Equilibrium and Abortion
  • p. 188.
  • 4.5.2.
  • Letting the Fetus Die
  • p. 193.
  • 4.5.3.
  • Killing the Fetus
  • p. 199.
  • 4.5.4.
  • Two Objections
  • p. 204.
  • 1.
  • p. 13.
  • 4.6.
  • The
  • Intending versus Foreseeing Objection
  • p. 212.
  • 4.6.1.
  • The
  • Objection
  • p. 212.
  • 4.6.2.
  • Intentionally Letting the Fetus Die
  • 1.3.
  • p. 215.
  • 4.6.3.
  • Intentionally Killing the Fetus
  • p. 221.
  • 4.7.
  • The
  • Stranger versus Offspring Objection
  • p. 227.
  • 4.8.
  • The
  • The
  • Adult versus Infant Objection
  • p. 234.
  • 4.9.
  • The
  • Different Burdens Objection
  • p. 236.
  • 4.10.
  • The
  • Organ Ownership Objection
  • p. 242.
  • Arguments
  • 4.11.
  • The
  • Child Support Objection
  • p. 246.
  • 4.12.
  • The
  • Extraction versus Abortion Objection
  • p. 254.
  • 4.13.
  • The
  • p. 14.
  • Third-Party Objection
  • p. 260.
  • 4.14.
  • The
  • Feminist Objection
  • p. 262.
  • 4.14.1.
  • The
  • Ignoring Patriarchy Version
  • p. 263.
  • 1.3.1.
  • 4.14.2.
  • The
  • Selfishness Version
  • p. 265.
  • 4.15.
  • The
  • Duty to Save the Violinist Objection
  • p. 266.
  • 4.15.1.
  • The
  • The
  • Conscription Version
  • p. 267.
  • 4.15.2.
  • The
  • Involuntary Samaritan Version
  • p. 268.
  • 4.15.3.
  • The
  • Justification versus Excuse Version
  • p. 269.
  • Rights-Based Argument
  • 4.15.4.
  • The
  • Consequentialist Version
  • p. 271.
  • 4.16.
  • The
  • Compensation Objection
  • p. 273.
  • 4.17.
  • The
  • p. 14.
  • Inconsistency Objection
  • p. 274.
  • 4.18.
  • Some Puzzles Resolved
  • p. 276.
  • 5.
  • Non-Rights-Based Arguments
  • p. 282.
  • 5.1.
  • The
  • 1.3.2.
  • Golden Rule Argument
  • p. 283.
  • 5.1.1.
  • Hare's Version
  • p. 284.
  • 5.1.2.
  • Gensler's Version
  • p. 289.
  • 5.2.
  • The
  • Framing the Debate
  • Non-Rights-Based Arguments
  • Culture of Death Argument
  • p. 298.
  • 5.3.
  • The
  • Pro-Life Feminist Argument
  • p. 300.
  • 5.4.
  • The
  • Uncertainty Argument
  • p. 310.
  • p. 18.
  • 5.4.1.
  • Three Versions of the Argument
  • p. 312.
  • 5.4.2.
  • Three Objections
  • p. 314
  • 2.
  • The
  • Conception Criterion
  • p. 19.
  • 2.1.
  • The
  • Parsimony Argument
  • p. 20.
  • p. 1.
  • 2.2.
  • The
  • Species Essence Argument
  • p. 23.
  • 2.3.
  • The
  • Kindred Species Argument
  • p. 26.
  • 2.4.
  • The
  • 1.1.1.
  • Sanctity of Human Life Argument
  • p. 27.
  • 2.5.
  • The
  • Slippery Slope Argument
  • p. 33.
  • 2.6.
  • The
  • Potentiality Argument
  • p. 45.
  • Framing the Question
  • 2.7.
  • The
  • Essential Property Argument
  • p. 49.
  • 2.8.
  • The
  • Future-Like-Ours Argument
  • p. 56.
  • 2.8.1.
  • The
  • p. 3.
  • Argument
  • p. 57.
  • 2.8.2.
  • The
  • Challenge
  • p. 62.
  • 2.8.3.
  • Occurrent versus Dispositional Desires
  • p. 64.
  • 2.8.4.
  • 1.1.2.
  • Actual versus Ideal Desires
  • p. 70.
  • 2.8.5.
  • Implications
  • p. 79.
  • 2.9.
  • The
  • Probability Argument
  • p. 85.
  • 3.
  • Three Objections
  • Postconception Criteria
  • p. 91.
  • 3.1.
  • Implantation
  • p. 92.
  • 3.2.
  • External Human Form
  • p. 95.
  • 3.3.
  • Actual Fetal Movement
Control code
49225692
Dimensions
24 cm
Extent
xvi, 350 pages
Isbn
9780521520355
Isbn Type
(pbk.)
Lccn
2002022282
Media category
unmediated
Media MARC source
rdamedia
Media type code
n
Other physical details
illustrations

Library Locations

    • Pardee Legal Research CenterBorrow it
      5998 Alcalá Park, San Diego, CA, 92110-2492, US
      32.771471 -117.187496
Processing Feedback ...