English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 91913/122132 (75%)
Visitors : 25743540      Online Users : 222
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 文學院 > 哲學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/78083
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/78083

    Title: 墮胎合乎道德嗎?-由湯姆森觀點論之
    The Abortion Controversy: On Thomson’s Defense of Abortion
    Authors: 邱娜瑩
    Contributors: 鄭光明
    Cheng, Kuang Ming
    Keywords: 墮胎
    Date: 2013
    Issue Date: 2015-09-01 16:16:45 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 墮胎的道德爭議一直是倫理學的重要課題。美國哲學家茱蒂絲.湯姆森在一九七一年發表〈為墮胎辯護〉 一文,這篇論文不但試圖反駁反對墮胎論者的立場,湯姆森藉由著名的小提琴家思想實驗,以女性的身體自主權為基礎論證 墮胎並非是道德上不可被允許的行為。本文研究〈為墮胎辯護〉該文之論點,並探討針對此文的批評爭端,接著藉由反駁對〈為墮胎辯護〉之批評,進一步為〈為墮胎辯護〉一文辯護。最後,本文同意湯姆森之主張:墮胎並非道德上不可被允許之行為;並呼籲人們在道德議題上公平地審視墮胎爭議。
    The moral debate on abortion has been a hot issue in Ethics. In 1971, American philosopher Judith Javis Thomson launched her famous thesis ‘A Defense of Abortion’ in which she argued against anti-abortionists. By the violinist thought experiment, she began with women’s bodily autonomy as her basic argument and claimed that abortion is not morally impermissible. My thesis here studied Thomson’s view on abortion and discussed the critics that ‘A Defense of Abortion’ evoked. Furthermore, I try to fight back those critics and defense for “A Defense of Abortion.” Finally, this thesis agrees Thomson’s claim: Abortion is not morally impermissible, and suggest that we should fairly examine the debate on abortion.
    Reference: Baer, J. (1999). Our lives before the law: constructing a feminist jurisprudence. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
    Beckwith, F. (1994). Arguments from the Bodily Rights: A Critical Analysis. In  Pojman and Beckwith, eds. (1998). The Abortion Controversy: A Reader (pp. 132–150). London: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
    Boonin-Vail, D. (1997). A Defense of “A Defense of Abortion”: On the Responsibility Objection to Thomson’s Argument. Ethics, 107, 2: 286-313.
    Brody, B. (1971). Abortion and the Law. The Journal of Philosophy, 68, 12: 357-369
    Brody, B. (1972). The Morality of Abortion. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1, 3: 335-340.
    Langer, R. (1992). Abortion and the Right to Privacy. Journal of Social Philosophy, 23, 2: 23-51.
    Noonan, J. (1994). Abortion Is Morally Wrong. In Pojman and Beckwith, eds. (1998).The Abortion Controversy: A Reader. London: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Thomson, J. (1971). A Defense of Abortion. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1, 1: 47-66
    Tooley, M. (1984). In Defense of Abortion and Infanticide. In Joel Feinberg eds. (1986). The Problem of Abortion. Belmont:Wadsworth Publishing Company.
    Warren M. (1973) On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. In Beauchamp and Walters, ed. Reprinted in Dwyer and Feinberg, eds. (1993). The Problem of Abortion. (pp. 59–74).
    Watkins, M. (2006). Re-reading Thomson: Thomson’s Unanswered Challenge. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 20, 4: 41-59.
    Wilcox, J. (1989). Nature as Demonic in Thomson's Defense of Abortion. The New Scholasticism, 63, 4: 463-484
    Description: 碩士
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098154003
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[哲學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat

    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

    社群 sharing

    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback