The role of philosophy in the contemporary abortion debate.

Inspired by Patrick Lee's "A Christian Philosopher's View of Recent Directions in the Abortion Debate," this essay raises the question of how effective philosophical arguments can be in determining the moral status of legalized abortion. On one hand, Christian philosophers have been successful in explaining both the humanity and the personhood of the unborn child, as well as exposing the incoherence of those who would deny the unborn child's humanity or personhood. Nevertheless, in order to confront the pro-abortion position in its most radical form, a much more complex philosophical argument must be given. Following thinkers such as Alasdaire MacIntyre, Christian philosophers must articulate and promote a philosophical position according to which morality is conceived in richer terms than the mere respecting of individual rights. The social dimension of human nature must be rediscovered in order that the happiness and welfare of others becomes a desirable goal in and of itself. According to a morality where individual rights is the bottom line (for example, that of Judith Jarvis Thompson), women very well may have the right to "extricate" themselves from their pregnancy even when doing so will result in the death of their child. What must be explained, therefore, is the more profound insight that social morality is equally concerned with obligations to others, including those who are most helpless and unable to speak for themselves.     

Next steps in the abortion debate: It is time to consider some overlooked and new data

As the abortion debate moves into its next stage since The Supreme Court struck down the Roe v. Wade decision, little has changed, except for the dire circumstances in which many pregnant women find themselves. Both sides in the debate continue talking past each other in nasty ways, using the same tired, old arguments. We need more and fresh data really to advance the discussion. This article provides fresh historical, neurobiological, and theological data for the debate. From history we learn that the debate on abortion has not always been about feminism versus conservatives (though the Pro-Life side has been associated with white nationalism) and that Protestants have not always been divided on the issue. Theologically the author directs us to his previous research indicating that disagreements today among the denominations on the issue have not been theologically related. This has important implications for rendering the debate more civil, since it is not about faith and Biblical fidelity. From Neurobiology, we receive fresh insights about when in the course of a pregnancy the fetus/embryo actually begins to function with a human-like brain, when it is truly a homo sapiens. In addition to offering reflections on the implications of these insights for the abortion debate, we are reminded that the inputs of history and science are most appropriate inputs for Lutherans committed to using the Two-Kingdom Ethic in social ethics and politics.     

A Christian philosopher's view of recent directions in the abortion debate.

From the standpoint of a Christian philosopher, heeding the teaching and exhortations of Pope John Paul II and previous popes, I examine three directions in which the recent philosophical debate has developed. In the last seven or eight years there has been 1) a renewed focus on the biological issue of when a human individual comes to be, 2) new arguments for the proposition that personhood is a characteristic acquired after birth, and 3) refinements of the early argument of Judith Thomson. Replying to these developments, I defend, on philosophical grounds, the pro-life position. I argue that a distinct, whole (though immature) human individual comes to be at conception, that he or she is a person, with full moral worth, from the moment he or she comes to be, and the mothers and fathers have a special responsibility to their children which entails (at least) that they ought not to choose to abort them. I conclude by briefly indicating, from the standpoint of Christian faith, why Christian philosophers should vigorously pursue this debate.     

The Lashley-Hull debate revisited

N. Weidman (1994) claimed that "Karl Lashley and Clark Hull had a long and unresolved controversy about the structure and function of the brain, its relationship to the mind, and the use of machine metaphors to explain intelligence" (p. 162). The record contained in published articles and unpublished correspondence indicates otherwise. The clash was explicitly about continuity versus noncontinuity in discrimination learning, stimulus generalization, and the development of quantitative and mathematical psychological theory and its relation to neurophysiological data. Weidman also contended that the subtext of the debate was whether heredity or environment was more important in determining intelligence and behavior. This is doubtful. It is more probable that the debate stemmed from Lashley's career-long opposition to connectionism.