EthxWeb Search Results - Georgetown University

Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full texthttp://www.bioethics.net/journal/ (link may be outdated)Document 34Gray, StephanieA kidney versus the uterusEthics and Medics 2009 October; 34(10): 1 2Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full text*Document 35Gerrard, J.W.Is it ethical for a general practitioner to claim a conscientious objection when asked to refer for abortion?Journal of Medical Ethics 2009 October; 35(10): 599 602Abstract: Abortion is one of the most divisive topics in healthcare. Proponents and opponents hold strong views.Some health workers who oppose abortion assert a right of conscientious objection to it, a position itself that othersfind unethical. Even if allowance for objection should be made, it is not clear how far it should extend. Canconscientious objection be given as a reason not to refer when a woman requests her doctor to do so? This paperexplores the idea of the general practitioner (GP) who declines to make a direct referral for abortion, asking thewoman to see another GP instead. The purpose is to defend the claim that an appeal to conscientious objection inthis way can be reasonable and ethical.Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full texthttp://jme.bmj.com/content/35/10.toc (link may be outdated)*Document 36Di Nucci, E.On how to interpret the role of the future within the abortion debate.Journal of Medical Ethics 2009 October; 35(10): 651 652Abstract: In a previous paper, I had argued that Strong's counterexamples to Marquis's argument against abortion according to which terminating fetuses is wrong because it deprives them of a valuable future fail either becausethey have no bearing on Marquis's argument or because they make unacceptable claims about what constitutes avaluable future. In this paper I respond to Strong's criticism of my argument according to which I fail to acknowledgethat Marquis uses "future like ours" and "valuable future" interchangeably. I show that my argument does not rely onnot acknowledging that "future like ours" and "valuable future" are interchangeable; and that, rather, it is exactly byreplacing "future like ours" with "valuable future" that I construct my argument against Strong. I conclude with someremarks on how Marquis's concept of "future like ours" should be interpreted.Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full texthttp://jme.bmj.com/content/35/10.toc (link may be outdated)Document 37O'Malley, Seán P.Defense of Catholic funeral of Sen. Edward KennedyOrigins 2009 September 17; 39(15): 245 256Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full text

Document 38Rigali, JustinHealth care reform legislation should be 'abortion neutral'Origins 2009 August 13; 39(11): 184 185Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full textDocument 39Wills, Susan E.Rev. Thomas M. King, SJ (1929 2009)National Right to Life News 2009 July August; 36(7 8): 16Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full text*Document 40Flannagan, MatthewBoonin's defense of the sentience criterion: a critiqueEthics and Medicine 2009 Summer; 25(2): 95 106Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full textDocument 41Byrnes, W. MalcolmConfessions of a "pro life" Obama supporterNational Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 2009 Summer; 9(2): 241 244Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full text*Document 42Strong, C.Reply to Di Nucci: why the counterexamples succeed.Journal of Medical Ethics 2009 May; 35(5): 326 327Abstract: In my essay, a critique of "the best secular argument against abortion" I reconstructed and criticised twoversions of Don Marquis's well known argument against abortion. In critiquing the version I call the "essenceargument", I presented counterexamples to one of the premises in that argument. In this issue of the journal, Ezio DiNucci takes note of the fact that I used the term "valuable future" in the premise but used the term "future like ours"in the counterexamples. Because the terms are different, Di Nucci claimed that my counterexamples had no bearingon the premise and are therefore unsuccessful. The main error in Di Nucci's objection is a failure to acknowledge thatMarquis uses the terms "valuable future" and "future like ours" interchangeably. For the purpose of reconstructingMarquis's argument, the term "valuable future" is to be taken in a sense that means the same as "future like ours".Once this point is recognised, Di Nucci's objection falls apart.Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full texthttp://jme.bmj.com (link may be outdated)

*Document 43Di Nucci, E.Abortion: Strong's counterexamples fail.Journal of Medical Ethics 2009 May; 35(5): 304 305Abstract: This paper shows that the counterexamples proposed by Strong in 2008 in the Journal of Medical Ethics toMarquis's argument against abortion fail. Strong's basic idea is that there are cases for example, terminally illpatients where killing an adult human being is prima facie seriously morally wrong even though that human being isnot being deprived of a "valuable future". So Marquis would be wrong in thinking that what is essential about thewrongness of killing an adult human being is that they are being deprived of a valuable future. This paper shows thatwhichever way the concept of "valuable future" is interpreted, the proposed counterexamples fail: if it is interpretedas "future like ours", the proposed counterexamples have no bearing on Marquis's argument. If the concept isinterpreted as referring to the patient's preferences, it must be either conceded that the patients in Strong's scenarioshave some valuable future or admitted that killing them is not seriously morally wrong. Finally, if "valuable future" isinterpreted as referring to objective standards, one ends up with implausible and unpalatable moral claims.Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full texthttp://jme.bmj.com (link may be outdated)Document 44Dogan, Hanzade; Demirhan Erdemir, AysegülAbortion from the viewpoint of Islam and OttomansJournal of the International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine (JISHIM) 2009 2010 April October; 8 8(15 16 17 18): 115 116 [Online]. Accessed:http://www.ishim.net/ishimj/JISHIM15 16 17 18.pdf [2010 Decemeber 20]Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full texthttp://www.ishim.net/ishimj/JISHIM15 16 17 18.pdf (link may be outdated)*Document 45Hentoff, NatConscientious objectors to killing pre birthersFree Inquiry 2009 April May; 29(3): 24 25Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full textDocument 46Rocca, Francis X.Vatican official defends child's abortionWashington Post 2009 March 21; p. B7http://www.washingtonpost.com (link may be outdated)Document 47Brazil: 9 year old has abortion despite Church's objectionsNew York Times 2009 March 5; p. A15

http://www.nytimes.com (link may be outdated)Document 48Moore, Steven C.A tragic inheritance: a personal perspective on the abortion debateAmerica 2009 February 16; 200(5): 19 20Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full texthttp://www.americamagazine.org/archives.cfm (link may be outdated)Document 49Kelly, James R.Finding renewal: why the pro life movement should return to its rootsAmerica 2009 February 16; 200(5): 11 14Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full texthttp://www.americamagazine.org/archives.cfm (link may be outdated)*Document 50Tupa, AntonKilling, letting die, and the mortality of abortionJournal of Applied Philosophy 2009 February; 26(1): 1 26Abstract: David Boonin, in his A Defense of Abortion, argues that abortions that involve killing the foetus are morallypermissible, even if granting for the sake of argument that the foetus has a right to life. His primary argument is anargument by analogy to a 'trolley case'. I offer two lines of counterargument to his argument by analogy. First, Iargue that Boonin's analogy between his trolley case and a normal unwanted pregnancy does not hold. I revise histrolley case in light of my objections. Second, I argue that Boonin's arguments for the permissibility of killing, whenapplied to this revised trolley case — and by extension, typical unwanted pregnancies — do not succeed in justifyingkilling.Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full text*Document 51Burke, Denise M.The Freedom of Choice Act: endangering the unborn, women, and Catholic health careEthics and Medics 2009 February; 34(2): 1 3Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full text*Document 52Stith, RichardAbortion as betrayalHuman Life Review 2009 Winter Spring; 35(1 2): 71 76Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full text

*Document 53Rhonheimer, Martin and Murphy, William F., eds.VITAL CONFLICTS IN MEDICAL ETHICS: A VIRTUE APPROACH TO CRANIOTOMY AND TUBALPREGNANCIESWashington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2009. 162 p.Call number: HQ767.3 .R48613 2009*Document 54Tooley, Michael; Wolf Devine, Celia; Devine, Philip E.; and Jaggar, Alison M.ABORTION: THREE PERSPECTIVESNew York: Oxford University Press, 2009. 258 p.Call number: HQ767.15 .A277 2009*Document 55Klusendorf, ScottTHE CASE FOR LIFE: EQUIPPING CHRISTIANS TO ENGAGE THE CULTUREWheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2009. 254 p.Call number: HQ767.25 .K58 2009*Document 56Luper, StevenAbortionIn his: The Philosophy of Death. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009: 197 218Call number: BD444 .L87 2009*Document 57Warren, Mary AnneAbortionIn: Kuhse, Helga; Singer, Peter, eds. A Companion to Bioethics. 2nd edition. Chichester, UK; Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, 2009: 140 148Call number: R724 .C616 2009Document 58Ilyas, Muhammad; Alam, Mukhtar; Ahmad, Habib; Sajid ul GhafoorAbortion and protection of the human fetus: religious and legal problems in PakistanHuman Reproduction and Genetic Ethics 2009; 15(2): 55 59Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full text*Document 59McLachlan, Hugh V.Abortion and Dawkins' fallacious account of the so called 'Great Beethoven Fallacy'Human Reproduction and Genetic Ethics 2009; 15(2): 44 54

Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full text*Document 60Mackler, Aaron L.Jewish perspectives on abortionIn: Lizza, John P., ed. Defining the Beginning and End of Life: Readings on Personal Identity and Bioethics.Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009: 281 293Call number: R724 .D447 2009*Document 61Groenhout, Ruth E.AbortionIn her: Bioethics: A Reformed Look at Life and Death Choices. Grand Rapids, MI: Faith Alive Christian Resources,2009: 65 77Call number: R725.56 .G76 2009Document 62Sachedina, AbdulazizTerminating early lifeIn his: Islamic Biomedical Ethics: Principles and Application. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2009: 125 144Call number: R725.59 .S33 2009*Document 63Steinbock, Bonnie; London, Alex John; Arras, John D., eds.ReproductionIn their: Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine: Contemporary Readings in Bioethics. 7th edition. Boston: McGraw Hill,2009: 535 667Call number: R724 .E788 2009Document 64Kavanaugh, John F.Abortion absolutistsAmerica 2008 December 15; 199(20): 8Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full texthttp://www.americamagazine.org/archives.cfm (link may be outdated)*Document 65Camosy, Charles C.Common ground on surgical abortion? engaging Peter Singer on the moral status of potential persons.Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2008 December; 33(6): 577 593Abstract: The debate over surgical abortion is certainly one of the most divisive in ethical discourse and for many itseems interminable. However, this paper argues that a primary reason for this is confusion with regard to whatissues are actually under dispute. When looking at an entrenched and articulate figure on one side of the debate,Peter Singer, and comparing his views with those of his opponents, one finds that the disputed issue is actuallyquite a narrow one: the moral status of potential persons. Finding this common ground clears the conceptual space

for a fruitful argument: the thesis of which is that most, including Singer, who argue that potential persons do nothave full personal moral status fail to make the necessary distinction between natural potential (which confers moralstatus) and practical potential (which admittedly does not).Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full text*Document 66Haas, John M.Conscience protections for health care workers: NCBC letter to U.S. Department of Health and HumanServicesNational Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 2008 Winter; 8(4): 735 738Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full textDocument 67George, Francis E.Statement on abortion and politicsOrigins 2008 November 20; 38(24): 387Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full textDocument 68Salmon, Jacqueline L.Some abortion foes shifting focus from ban to reductionWashington Post 2008 November 18; p. A1, A15http://www.washingtonpost.com (link may be outdated)Document 69Bishops urge dual approach to life issues [news]America 2008 November 3; 199(14): 7Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full texthttp://www.americamagazine.org/archive.cfm (link may be outdated)*Document 70Diamond, Eugene F.Clarification of the goals statement "every child should be born wanted"Linacre Quarterly 2008 November; 75(4): 291 293Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full text*Stretton, D.Document 71

Critical notice – defending life: a moral and legal case against abortion choice by Francis J Beckwith [bookreview]Journal of Medical Ethics 2008 November; 34(11): 793 797Abstract: Francis Beckwith's Defending life: a moral and legal case against abortion choice defends the pro lifeposition on moral, legal and political grounds. In this critical notice I consider three key issues and argue thatBeckwith's treatment of each of them is unpersuasive. The issues are: (1) whether abortion is politically justified bythe principle that we should err on the side of liberty in the face of reasonable disagreement over the moral status ofthe fetus; (2) whether the fetus's natural capacity or genetic propensity to develop rationality and communication issufficient to give it a moral right to life; and (3) whether abortion is morally justified on the basis of bodily rights. Ialso show that Beckwith's book fails to consider several important issues and arguments.Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full texthttp://www.jmedethics.com (link may be outdated)Document 72Rigali, Justin; Murphy, William F.Clarification on the church's approach to abortionOrigins 2008 October 30; 38(21): 331 332Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full text*Document 73Halperin, MordechaiTermination of pregnancy: legal, moral and Jewish aspectsJewish Medical Ethics and Halacha 2008 October; 6(2): 41 51Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full text*Document 74Strong, C.A critique of "the best secular argument against abortion"Journal of Medical Ethics 2008 October; 34(10): 727 731Abstract: Don Marquis has put forward a non religious argument against abortion based on what he claims is amorally relevant similarity between killing adult human beings and killing fetuses. He asserts that killing adults iswrong because it deprives them of their valuable futures. He points out that a fetus's future includes everything thatis in an adult's future, given that fetuses naturally develop into adults. Thus, according to Marquis, killing a fetusdeprives it of the same sort of valuable future that an adult is deprived of in being killed and this makes abortionseriously wrong. Commentators have raised a number of objections to Marquis's argument, to which he hassatisfactorily responded. In this paper, difficulties with Marquis's argument that have not been considered byprevious commentators are pointed out. A main thesis of this paper is that Marquis does not adequately defend hisargument against several important objections that he himself has raised. These new considerations support theview that Marquis's argument is unsuccessful.Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full texthttp://www.jmedethics.com (link may be outdated)Document 75Kirkpatrick, David D.Abortion issue again dividing catholic votes; a theological dispute felt in a swing city [Scranton, PA]

New York Times 2008 September 17; p. A1, A20http://www.nytimes.com (link may be outdated)*Document 76Hopkins, Patrick D.Can echnology fix the abortion problem?: Ectogenesis and the real issues of abortionInternational Journal of Applied Philosophy 2008 Fall; 22(2): 311 326Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full textDocument 77Bissonnette, JoeShould we show pictures of aborted babies?Human Life Review 2008 Fall; 34(4): 15 21Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full text*Document 78Marcin, Raymond B.God's littlest children and the right to live: the case for a positivist pro life overturning of RoeJournal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy 2008 Fall; 25(1): 38 75Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full text*Document 79Lupton, M.Termination of pregnancy by telemedicine: an ethicist's viewpoint.BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2008 August; 115(9): 1071 1073Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full text*Document 80Pear, RobertAbortion proposal sets condition on aidNew York Times 2008 July 15; p. A17http://www.nytimes.com (link may be outdated)Document 81Urbina, IanCatholic aid for abortion creates stir in VirginiaNew York Times 2008 July 3; p. A16

http://www.nytimes.com (link may be outdated)Document 82"Europa debe revisar sus políticas abortistas" [Europe must revise its abortion policy]Vida y Etica 2008 June; 9(1): 127 129Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal

involve "direct" action against the embryo. Georgetown users check Georgetown Journal Finder for access to full text Document 3 Nasir, Mohamad Abdun; Asnawi The majelis ulama's fatwa on abortion in contemporary Indonesia The Mus