By Laurie Shrage
Shrage argues that Roe v Wade's regulatory scheme of a six-month time span for abortion on call for polarized the general public and obscured possible choices with very likely broader help. She explores the origins of that scheme, then defends an alternative one--with a time span shorter than 6 months for non-therapeutic abortions--that may win wide aid had to make criminal abortion companies on hand to all ladies.
Read Online or Download Abortion and Social Responsibility: Depolarizing the Debate (Studies in Feminist Philosophy) PDF
Similar social policy books
This booklet examines the relationship among the decline of the orphanage and the increase of welfare. Matthew Crenson argues that the prehistory of the welfare approach was once performed out no longer at the degree of nationwide politics or category clash yet within the micropolitics of institutional administration. New preparations for baby welfare coverage emerged progressively as superintendents, traveling brokers, and charity officers answered to the problems that they encountered in operating orphanages or growing platforms that served as choices to institutional care.
- People’s Response to Disasters in the Philippines: Vulnerability, Capacities, and Resilience
- Affirmative Action and Racial Preference: A Debate (Point Counterpoint)
- Addiction: Entries and Exits
- Private Intergenerational Transfers and Population Aging: The German Case
Extra info for Abortion and Social Responsibility: Depolarizing the Debate (Studies in Feminist Philosophy)
For a doctor can choose an abortion procedure virtually guaranteed to cause the fetus's death, even on an otherwise viable fetus. For example, a delivery induced with saline rather than prostaglandin, or some combination of both, is more likely to result in fetal death. 71 Because doctors can use methods in late pregnancy that are reasonably certain to result in fetal death, prohibiting abortion after viability is not the only way a society can avoid the dilemmas of "abortions" that produce live births.
94 Dworkin contends that what most people in fact believe is that human life is inherently valuable, although we disagree over what makes it valuable and therefore when the deliberate sacrifice of life is appropriate. Those who believe that human life reflects the work of a divine creator think differently about what gives human life value from those 32 Abortion and Social Responsibility who believe that the unique capacity for consciousness and community with others is crucial. By attributing different views on abortion to our divergent reasons for holding the shared belief in the value of human life, rather than divergent views about fetal rights, Dworkin helps to render coherent the positions taken by both conservatives and liberals in this debate.
Laws restricting abortion, even with Is Roe Viable? 19 therapeutic exceptions, invade a woman's constitutionally protected privacy and the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship, and protecting the interests of a nonperson might not be sufficiently compelling to justify this invasion. Yet the justices did not want to conclude that any ban on abortion before birth would be unconstitutional. Newman's ruling, which struck down the Connecticut abortion law on privacy grounds, showed the Court how privacy reasoning could be consistent with a ban on nontherapeutic abortions after the point of viability.
Abortion and Social Responsibility: Depolarizing the Debate (Studies in Feminist Philosophy) by Laurie Shrage