Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 49:36 — 45.2MB)
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Deezer | RSS | More
In this episode, J.P. and Stan discuss a path for moral clarity through the complex conversations surrounding the abortion conversation.
In this podcast we discuss:
- What does it mean to discuss something in the morally relevant sense?
- What is “it” at the center of the controversy? How to gain clarity by asking the most fundamental question.
- How to approach complex issues when values conflict.
- The two ways to define a person: functional and ontological.
- How to parse out exceptional cases in order to get at the morality of an issue.
- What does Augustine and Locke’s view of ‘ownership’ have to say about the abortion conversation?
- Stan’s story he has lived to tell
- Do ideas have a gender?
Resources mentioned during our conversation:
- Medical Definition of Abortion – (RxList and Health.Harvard.edu)
- Andrew Moscrop, “‘Miscarriage or abortion?’ Understanding the medical language of pregnancy loss in Britain; a historical perspective”
- Greg Koukl, Stand to Reason Blog: Street Tactics Part 3
- Kathryn Kost, Isaac Maddow-Zimet, and Ashley C. Little, Pregnancies and Pregnancy Desires at the State Level: Estimates for 2017 and Trends Since 2012
- Stan Wallace, “Four Steps To Determining the Morality of Abortion”
- J.P. Moreland, “In the Morally Relevant Sense, It is Not a Woman’s Body”
- Connect with us!