1. What, according to Noonan, is the most fundamental question in the abortion debate?

 2. What does Noonan mean by "ensoulment"? Why does he claim that the notion of ensoulment does not require a theological basis?

 3. On what grounds does Noonan reject viability as the point that distinguishes persons from nonpersons? What are the implications, according to Noonan, of using independence as a criterion for personhood?

 4. On what grounds does Noonan reject experience and the possession of memories as an argument in support of abortion? What are some of the implications of this argument that Noonan finds unacceptable?

 5. On what grounds does Noonan reject both parental feelings toward the fetus and social visibility as morally irrelevant to the moral status of the fetus?

 6. What criterion does Noonan use to define personhood? What support does he offer for his definition?

 7. What analogy does Noonan offer to support his argument that even if we are not sure that the fetus is a person, we should give the fetus the benefit of the doubt?

 8. How does Noonan use "biological probabilities" to support his argument that the fetus is a person?

 9. How does Noonan suggest that we resolve conflicts between the rights of the fetus and the rights of the mother? Under what conditions does Noonan permit abortion?

 10. What philosophical principle is, according to Noonan, equivalent to the scriptural command to "love your neighbor as yourself "? How does this principle apply to the fetus?

Discussion Questions- Noonan Essay

 1. According to Noonan, "anyone conceived by a man and a woman is human [a person]." Do you agree? Critically evaluate the premises that Noonan offers in support of this definition of personhood.

 2. Discuss Noonan's criterion of personhood in light of the fact that it is now possible to clone human beings.

3. Imagine a conversation between Noonan and Thomson. How might Noonan respond to Thomson's defense of abortion? How might Thomson respond to Noonan's claim that abortion is never right except in cases of self-defense?

 5. While Noonan supports the Catholic position on abortion, he points out that this position can be supported on rational philosophical or humanistic premises. Has Noonan done an adequate job of supporting his position on abortion using only philosophical premises? Support your answer.

Critical Reading Questions- Thomson Essay

1. What is Thomson's position regarding the personhood of the fetus?

 2. How does Thomson use the violinist analogy to illustrate the relationship between the fetus and the woman?

 3. What conclusion regarding the rights of the fetus, the rights of the mother, and the moral permissibility of abortion does Thomson draw based on the violinist analogy?

4. Why does Thomson reject the "extreme" pro-life view of abortion?
 5. Which position on abortion is Thomson addressing when she uses the analogy of a person being trapped in a tiny house with a rapidly growing child?

 6. How does Thomson respond to the pro-life argument that if the fetus has a right to life, abortion is unjust killing?

7. What analogy does Thomson use tojustify abortion in cases of contraceptive failure?

 8. Are there any circumstances, according to Thomson, in which abortion is not morally permissible?

 9. What is the difference between a Minimally Decent Samaritan and a Good Samaritan? What is the relevance of this distinction in the abortion debate?

 10. On what grounds does Thomson draw a moral distinction between the right to have an abortion and the right to secure the death of an unborn child?

Discussion Questions- Thomson Essay

 1. Do you agree with Thomson that abortion is morally defensible even if the fetus is a person? In her analogies does Thomson take the presumption of the personhood of the fetus as seriously as she does the personhood of the mother? Support your answer.

 2. Imagine that you find a baby or toddler in your winter cabin. There is no one else around to help care for the child and, because of heavy snows, no way to get to town for the next eight months. Assuming that you have enough food in the cabin for both of you, do you have a moral obligation, as a Minimally Decent Samaritan, to let the child share your cabin for the next eight months? Would it be morally permissible for you to put the child outside even though you knew she would certainly die of exposure if you did? Discuss the analogy between this case and that of abortion.

 3. Does Thomsons argument that the fetus has no right to the mother's womb justify killing the fetus? Does Thomson do an adequate job of making a distinction between the right of a mother to have an abortion and the moral injunction against taking the life of the fetus? Support your answers.

 4. Thomson argues that we have no responsibility for another person unless we have voluntarily assumed it. Do you agree? What are the implications of Thomsons argument for cases in which the woman chose to continue her pregnancy when the father did not want to have the child? Does the father have a moral obligation toward the child in terms of child support and sharing in the care of the child? Support your answers.

 5 . Discuss how Thomson would most likely stand in the debate over late-term "partial birth" abortions. Would the fact that the child had a genetic disorder be relevant?