Which of the following is not an important question in the modern abortion/Infanticide debate:

Roe v. Wade (1973) said that the default position of the American Constitution is that no living human organism has a right to life until it is born (the Supervenient-Birth view of personhood), but if states want to, they could pass laws to protect fetuses after the point of viability (able to survive outside the woman’s body) which was 27 weeks in 1973.  . Which of the following is NOT one of the reasons why philosophers argue “Supervenience-Viability” is problematic as a criterion of personhood (supervenient view)?

Some proponents of abortion/feticide argue that this procedure which has ended the lives of 60 million human organisms in the USA since 1973 is  a justified means of population control in the world, and that abortion/feticide (and, perhaps, infanticide as Margaret Sanger argued) is also a justified means of relieving economic burdens on the family.  . What is a possible problem with this argument? 

The postmodern or relativistic view of the self (that many American laws assume and politicians like President Obama endorsed) says that the mother decides the personhood of the fetus/infant.  Which of the following has not been raised as an objection to this view?  

One common Supervenient view up until the 19th Century was that the fetus was not a person until it acquired a “soul” and the mother could feel the living organism moving inside her.  This view was called “quickening” and it occurred between 12 – 16 weeks.  Why is this view rejected today? 

In common parlance, the word “abortion” is usually defined as the intentional termination of a pregnancy that destroys or kills the embryo or fetus.   Some philosophers argue that it should, instead,  be called feticide to distinguish it from spontaneous (natural) abortions. 

Moral Relativism Explain your answers as you would to an elderly person without any ethical training (i.e. avoid sounding like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) with your own examples.  . (1) Give us the argument for moral relativism from Naturalism (scientific atheism).    . (2) Give us the most persuasive (or second-most if Naturalism is your first) argument (in your mind) to believe in conventionalism (cultural moral relativism).  Explain with examples and define the view you are defending.  . (3 & 4) Give us the two most persuasive arguments (in your mind) against conventionalism and in favor of moral realism/objectivism. Explain with examples and define the view that you are defending.  .

Choose one hazard from a warehouse, shop, construction, or office environment. Explain the hazard, possible harm, recommended control, and how the control reduces risk.

Ethics on the Worldviews of Theism & Naturalism and the Moral Argument for God’s Existence . 1) Explain one of the most significant problems a Naturalist (scientific atheist) has in explaining some issue or data in the field of ethics.  Explain why it is a problem given the particular philosophical commitments for a Naturalist.  . 2) What is the most persuasive response a Naturalist could give (or have given) in light of this problem?  . 3) What do you make of the Moral Argument for God’s existence? Explain it and evaluate it.  Many atheists and theists think that there exists a lot of data from the common-sense ethical views of humans (e.g. existence of good/evil, guilt, free will, etc.) that are inexplicable on the Naturalistic worldview and are easily explained on the worldview of Personal Theism.  Most atheists/Naturalists explain this data away and some theists think serve as great evidence for God’s existence.  In light of this “moral argument” for God’s existence (given by philosophers like Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, William Sorley, and William Lane Craig) which worldview explains the data from ethics you think is real?   (nota bene: Be thorough in your explanation even if you don’t think the data does not need an explanation).    .

I have watched the video above and I understand that this course requires an external webcam with a side view.