Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Hello Last year, and also at the beginning of this year, I've had quite a few requests asking for my notes that I used last year for the abortion exam. I'm a Year 13 student, and last year I achieved an A at AS, with 100% in this exam, through basically memorizing these notes and adapting them for the question in the exam. I unfortunately no longer have my Foundations notes, as far as I know, but I may be able to post my A2 notes soon. I haven't really looked at these since last May, so apologies for spelling mistakes etc.!

    Good luck in your exams!
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Stucture
    Write a paragraph on each philosophy, either writing how they support your stance or pointing out the weaknesses of their view and why your's is better.
    At the end of each philosopher, state how this supports the viewpoint that you have taken in your introduction.

    Introduction
    Normally the question will ask you about religious principles, so this would be the strong sanctity of life, weak sanctity of life, and the quality of life. Then they ask you to refer to the topic you have studied, so this would be abortion.
    Strong Sanctity of Life- the view that life should be preserved with utmost importance, one should never take life. This is the view of the Roman Catholic Church. They do not agree with abortion in any situation.
    Weak Sanctity of Life-while they agree with the idea that life should be preserved, but they also believe that in some situations it may be acceptable to take a life. This is the view of the Methodist and Church of England. They don't normally believe in abortion, but they may accept it in some situations, for example if the mother's health is going to be at risk or the child would be severely disabled.
    Quality of Life-they believe that the decision to save a life should be influenced by the quality of the life they shall lead. For example, if their ability to make rational decisions is going to be affected then to kill may be seen as more acceptable. They believe abortion is acceptable it the mother or infant's quality of life is going to be affected.
    At the end, state which principle you are going to argue for.
    There are different philosophers that agree with each philosopher.
    Strong Sanctity of Life- Prof. Jim Stone
    Weak Sanctity of Life- Phillipa Foot, Don Marquis.
    Quality of Life- Peter Singer, Jonathan Glover, Judith Jarvis Thomson, Michael Tooley.
    I don't know if other schools do different philosophers, but these are the ones we are taught. I also do them in the same order all the time, just because that is the order in which I was taught them.

    Stone and Glover
    I always do these two together because them seem to argue against each other's points.
    Stone believes there is no difference between a foetus and an infant, so you should treat them the same.
    Glover doesn't believe they are the same. While they have the same internal features (eg. not being able to walk or talk), then have different external features, as an infant can form relationships with those around them but a foetus cannot.
    Stone argues that if we allow abortion, this will lead to a slippery slope where infanticide becomes acceptable and people start behaving in a Nazi-like fashion.
    Glover says that this won't happen, because it would require a massive change in human psychology. People intuitively look after infants, so a change in humanity would be needed for them to kill infants.

    Thomson
    Violinist Analogy- You are attached to a violinist against you will, and will be for nine months. You have the choice to either unplug yourself and let the violinist die, or stay plugged in for nine months and be trapped, but both of you walk away healthy. You are within your rights to unplug yourself. This reflects the idea of rape, and that a woman should be free to abort after rape as pregnancy will be a hindrance to her.
    Burglar Analogy-If a burglar enters you home, you are free to eject them if you wish to do so. Same idea as the violinist analogy
    Analogy of the Pollen-If you are allergic to a certain pollen, and you have taken all precautions to protect your home against this pollen but it still enters, you are free to destroy the pollen. This reflects contraception, so if you use contraception but you still get pregnant you are free to abort the child
    Analogy of the Expanding Baby-A mother is in a small house, with a baby that is rapidly expanding. If this baby expands any more, it will crush and kill her. The woman could kill this baby, and if a doctor for example was outside of the house he could not prevent her from killing the baby because he is a third party, and does not understand the pain she is in. The idea behind this is that a third party cannot make a decision regarding abortion because they are not experiencing the pregnancy themselves.

    Singer
    Disputes Thomson's points.
    Burglar Analogy-There is a difference between a burglar and a foetus, as the burglar is guilty of a crime but the foetus is innocent. They cannot be compared.
    Prince Charles Analogy-Gets around the potential person problem, that a foetus is a potential person so has a right to life. Prince Charles is a potential king, but he does not currently have the rights of a king. Foetus is a potential person, but doesn't currently have the rights of a person.

    Foot
    Criticizes the doctrine of double effect.
    Doctrine of Double Effect-Cannot do an action that will kill an foetus as the primary goal, but if an action has a different goal but killing the foetus is one drawback of the action then this would be okay. For example, giving a mother a medication to save her life, but the medication would also kill the foetus.
    Foot uses thought experiments, regarding positive and negative duties.
    Positive duty-to care for others
    Negative duty-to refrain from taking life.
    She has three thought experiments.
    1. The fat man in the cave. There are some men in a cave, and the one leading them out of the entrance get's stuck. Water is rising and they will all be killed if they don't get out. They either have the choice to kill the stuck man with dynamite or not kill him, and all die. This is a conflict of negative duties, and most people would use the dynamite.
    2. The out of control train. A train will not stop, and the driver can chose out of two tracks to turn on to. One track has one worker on it, and another has three workers. This is a conflict of negative duties. Most people would go onto the track with one worker.
    3. The doctor and the serum. People are dying, and the only way to save them is by killing a healthy man and get a serum from his body. This is a conflict of negative and positive duties, which is more difficult than negative conflicts. Most would chose to not kill the healthy man.
    Foot criticizes the doctrine of double effect because it goes against natural human intuition in thought experiments like these.

    Tooley
    The Cat and the Serum- If there was a serum that could turn cats into humans, it would not be required that all cats are given this serum. Just because you are capable do doing something, doesn't mean you have to do it. If a woman began to bleed, she would not have to go to hospital in an attempt to save the foetus. Failing to act to save a life is the same as killing.
    Infanticide-The concept of infanticide is interesting, as all parents would prefer a non-handicap child over a handicap child. Therefore, infanticide is simply a taboo.

    Marquis
    Abortion is wrong because it denies the foetus of a future like ours, and therefore doesn't matter whether the foetus is a person or not.
    Contraception that prevents contraception is not wrong, but contraception that works after the egg has been fertilized is wrong.
    Abortion is allowed when the foetus would be so handicapped that it would not be capable of having any future experiences, or if the child was going to be so defective that any future experiences would be painful or unpleasant for them.

    Here are some links to the essays where each philosopher talks about abortion, where there is more detail and a couple more points that I don't normally write about myself.
    The Morality of Religion by Jim Stone and Glover's response http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...n-an-exchange/
    Matters of Life and Death by Jonathan Glover http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...ife-and-death/
    A Defense of Abortion by Judith Jarvis Thomson http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/P...02/thomson.htm
    Taking Life: Humans by Peter Singer (We use a different essay at school, but I think he outlines some ideas about abortion in here)http://utilitarianism.net/singer/by/1993----.htm
    The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect by Phillipa Foot http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes...ubleEffect.pdf
    Philosophers of Abortion and Infanticide by Frank Bouchier-Hayes (This goes into Tooley's views, and also some of the others)http://www.minerva.mic.ul.ie//vol2/bh.html
    Why Abortion is Immoral by Don Marquis http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/45.marquis.pdf
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oswalds)
    Hello Last year, and also at the beginning of this year, I've had quite a few requests asking for my notes that I used last year for the abortion exam. I'm a Year 13 student, and last year I achieved an A at AS, with 100% in this exam, through basically memorizing these notes and adapting them for the question in the exam. I unfortunately no longer have my Foundations notes, as far as I know, but I may be able to post my A2 notes soon. I haven't really looked at these since last May, so apologies for spelling mistakes etc.!

    Good luck in your exams!
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Stucture
    Write a paragraph on each philosophy, either writing how they support your stance or pointing out the weaknesses of their view and why your's is better.
    At the end of each philosopher, state how this supports the viewpoint that you have taken in your introduction.

    Introduction
    Normally the question will ask you about religious principles, so this would be the strong sanctity of life, weak sanctity of life, and the quality of life. Then they ask you to refer to the topic you have studied, so this would be abortion.
    Strong Sanctity of Life- the view that life should be preserved with utmost importance, one should never take life. This is the view of the Roman Catholic Church. They do not agree with abortion in any situation.
    Weak Sanctity of Life-while they agree with the idea that life should be preserved, but they also believe that in some situations it may be acceptable to take a life. This is the view of the Methodist and Church of England. They don't normally believe in abortion, but they may accept it in some situations, for example if the mother's health is going to be at risk or the child would be severely disabled.
    Quality of Life-they believe that the decision to save a life should be influenced by the quality of the life they shall lead. For example, if their ability to make rational decisions is going to be affected then to kill may be seen as more acceptable. They believe abortion is acceptable it the mother or infant's quality of life is going to be affected.
    At the end, state which principle you are going to argue for.
    There are different philosophers that agree with each philosopher.
    Strong Sanctity of Life- Prof. Jim Stone
    Weak Sanctity of Life- Phillipa Foot, Don Marquis.
    Quality of Life- Peter Singer, Jonathan Glover, Judith Jarvis Thomson, Michael Tooley.
    I don't know if other schools do different philosophers, but these are the ones we are taught. I also do them in the same order all the time, just because that is the order in which I was taught them.

    Stone and Glover
    I always do these two together because them seem to argue against each other's points.
    Stone believes there is no difference between a foetus and an infant, so you should treat them the same.
    Glover doesn't believe they are the same. While they have the same internal features (eg. not being able to walk or talk), then have different external features, as an infant can form relationships with those around them but a foetus cannot.
    Stone argues that if we allow abortion, this will lead to a slippery slope where infanticide becomes acceptable and people start behaving in a Nazi-like fashion.
    Glover says that this won't happen, because it would require a massive change in human psychology. People intuitively look after infants, so a change in humanity would be needed for them to kill infants.

    Thomson
    Violinist Analogy- You are attached to a violinist against you will, and will be for nine months. You have the choice to either unplug yourself and let the violinist die, or stay plugged in for nine months and be trapped, but both of you walk away healthy. You are within your rights to unplug yourself. This reflects the idea of rape, and that a woman should be free to abort after rape as pregnancy will be a hindrance to her.
    Burglar Analogy-If a burglar enters you home, you are free to eject them if you wish to do so. Same idea as the violinist analogy
    Analogy of the Pollen-If you are allergic to a certain pollen, and you have taken all precautions to protect your home against this pollen but it still enters, you are free to destroy the pollen. This reflects contraception, so if you use contraception but you still get pregnant you are free to abort the child
    Analogy of the Expanding Baby-A mother is in a small house, with a baby that is rapidly expanding. If this baby expands any more, it will crush and kill her. The woman could kill this baby, and if a doctor for example was outside of the house he could not prevent her from killing the baby because he is a third party, and does not understand the pain she is in. The idea behind this is that a third party cannot make a decision regarding abortion because they are not experiencing the pregnancy themselves.

    Singer
    Disputes Thomson's points.
    Burglar Analogy-There is a difference between a burglar and a foetus, as the burglar is guilty of a crime but the foetus is innocent. They cannot be compared.
    Prince Charles Analogy-Gets around the potential person problem, that a foetus is a potential person so has a right to life. Prince Charles is a potential king, but he does not currently have the rights of a king. Foetus is a potential person, but doesn't currently have the rights of a person.

    Foot
    Criticizes the doctrine of double effect.
    Doctrine of Double Effect-Cannot do an action that will kill an foetus as the primary goal, but if an action has a different goal but killing the foetus is one drawback of the action then this would be okay. For example, giving a mother a medication to save her life, but the medication would also kill the foetus.
    Foot uses thought experiments, regarding positive and negative duties.
    Positive duty-to care for others
    Negative duty-to refrain from taking life.
    She has three thought experiments.
    1. The fat man in the cave. There are some men in a cave, and the one leading them out of the entrance get's stuck. Water is rising and they will all be killed if they don't get out. They either have the choice to kill the stuck man with dynamite or not kill him, and all die. This is a conflict of negative duties, and most people would use the dynamite.
    2. The out of control train. A train will not stop, and the driver can chose out of two tracks to turn on to. One track has one worker on it, and another has three workers. This is a conflict of negative duties. Most people would go onto the track with one worker.
    3. The doctor and the serum. People are dying, and the only way to save them is by killing a healthy man and get a serum from his body. This is a conflict of negative and positive duties, which is more difficult than negative conflicts. Most would chose to not kill the healthy man.
    Foot criticizes the doctrine of double effect because it goes against natural human intuition in thought experiments like these.

    Tooley
    The Cat and the Serum- If there was a serum that could turn cats into humans, it would not be required that all cats are given this serum. Just because you are capable do doing something, doesn't mean you have to do it. If a woman began to bleed, she would not have to go to hospital in an attempt to save the foetus. Failing to act to save a life is the same as killing.
    Infanticide-The concept of infanticide is interesting, as all parents would prefer a non-handicap child over a handicap child. Therefore, infanticide is simply a taboo.

    Marquis
    Abortion is wrong because it denies the foetus of a future like ours, and therefore doesn't matter whether the foetus is a person or not.
    Contraception that prevents contraception is not wrong, but contraception that works after the egg has been fertilized is wrong.
    Abortion is allowed when the foetus would be so handicapped that it would not be capable of having any future experiences, or if the child was going to be so defective that any future experiences would be painful or unpleasant for them.

    Here are some links to the essays where each philosopher talks about abortion, where there is more detail and a couple more points that I don't normally write about myself.
    The Morality of Religion by Jim Stone and Glover's response http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...n-an-exchange/
    Matters of Life and Death by Jonathan Glover http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...ife-and-death/
    A Defense of Abortion by Judith Jarvis Thomson http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/P...02/thomson.htm
    Taking Life: Humans by Peter Singer (We use a different essay at school, but I think he outlines some ideas about abortion in here)http://utilitarianism.net/singer/by/1993----.htm
    The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect by Phillipa Foot http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes...ubleEffect.pdf
    Philosophers of Abortion and Infanticide by Frank Bouchier-Hayes (This goes into Tooley's views, and also some of the others)http://www.minerva.mic.ul.ie//vol2/bh.html
    Why Abortion is Immoral by Don Marquis http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/45.marquis.pdf
    100% useful i'll be using these....
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    This has been a huge help- thank you! This might sound a bit cheeky but I was wondering if you please have any notes or essays for the implications side of the course as my teacher is useless and hasnt marked any of our work
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.