RogerWertheimer“Understanding the Abortion Argument,”Philosophy and Public AffairsI (1971), reprinted in FeinbergJoel, ed., The Problem of Abortion, 2nd ed. (Belmont, California, Wadsworth, 1984), 43ff.
2.
VanDeVeerDonald“Justifying ‘Wholesale Slaughter'”, in Feinberg, op. cit., 68.
3.
WarrenMary Ann“On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion,” Feinberg, 102–119.
4.
SumnerL. W.Abortion and Moral Theory (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton, 1981). An excerpt is reprinted in Feinberg, op. cit., 71-93.
5.
Feinberg135–144.
6.
Feinberg, 94–101.
7.
Feinberg, 79.
8.
Feinberg, 83.
9.
Feinberg, 74; cf. Sumner's book cited in note 4, pp. 124-160.
10.
Feinberg84.
11.
Feinberg, 73.
12.
TooleyMichaelAbortion and Infanticide (Oxford: Clarendon, 1983).
13.
This argument is proposed by Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae. Pt. I, Question 76, Article 1.
14.
The reason I have the “other things equal” clause added in the proposition above is only because my argument in this paper has not established what the correct normative ethical principles are. So, the argument by itself does not rule out, say, consequentialism or situationism, although I think both those theories are false. But what the argument establishes, if it is correct, is that the human embryo or fetus is something whose life must be respected, in whatever way the correct normative ethical principles indicate that personal life must be respected.
15.
Cf. GrisezGermain, and ShawRussellBeyond the New Morality, 3rd ed. (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1988), chapters 7-9.
16.
ThomasSt. Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, Chapter 112.
