Textbook-in-Progress Presentation Handout

Abortion and Animal Rights paper from 2000 or 2003

So I recently (summer, 2016) wrote an essay about abortion and animal rights. I realized that in 2000 I wrote a paper that I called "Abortion and Animal Rights: Related, but Importantly Different, Issues," that I apparently updated in 2003 (maybe I added the introductory paragraph then, since the paper works without it, and I couldn't have written that paragraph in 2000). By a fluke I found the file, which got lost and forgotten in a computer crash or change. That was a long time ago! The paper has a different tone from most things I write these days, but it appears that some of the basic points are the same. See below or the link above:

Book Review: Beating Hearts: Abortion and Animal Rights

SHERRY F. COLB AND MICHAEL C. DORF

Beating Hearts: Abortion and Animal Rights

Sherry F. Colb and Michael C. Dorf, Beating Hearts: Abortion and Animal Rights, Columbia University Press, 2016, 252pp., $35.00 (hbk), ISBN 9780231175142.

Reviewed byNathan Nobis, Morehouse College

http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/67959-beating-hearts-abortion-and-animal-rights/ 

Reddit

My and Dan Hooley's essay "A Moral Argument for Veganism" (from Philosophy Comes to Dinner) is being discussed at Reddit. Check out the discussion!

Powerpoint on Animal Experimentation

I was recently asked to make an audio-narrated PowerPoint that reviews this article of mine, to be used in a UCSD course on non-animal-based medical research:

Am J Med Sci. 2011 Oct;342(4):297-304. doi: 10.1097/MAJ.0b013e3182299421.

The harmful, nontherapeutic use of animals in research is morally wrong.

Nobis N1.

Author information

Abstract

It is argued that using animals in research is morally wrong when the research is nontherapeutic and harmful to the animals. This article discusses methods of moral reasoning and discusses how arguments on this and other bioethical issues might be defended and critiqued. A basic method of moral argument analysis is presented and used to show that common objections to the view that "animal research is morally wrong" fail: ie, common arguments for the view that "animal research is morally permissible" are demonstrably unsound or in need of defense. It is argued that the best explanations why harmful, nontherapeutic research on human beings is wrong, ie, what it is about humans that makes such experimentation wrong, apply to many animals as well. Thus, harmful and nontherapeutic animal experimentation is wrong for reasons similar to the reasons that harmful and nontherapeutic human experimentation is wrong.

PMID: 

21952174

DOI: 

10.1097/MAJ.0b013e3182299421

This PowerPoint with audio narration is available for download here. 

Information on this course is below the fold. 

One of my favorite books for teaching ..

 

What If....Collected Thought Experiments in Philosophy

By Peg Tittle

Published by Pearson Higher Education

Copyright © 2005

Published Date: May 5, 2004

Description

What If. . . Collected Thought Experiments in Philosophy is a brief, inexpensive collection of over 100 classic and contemporary “thought experiments”, each with an accompanying commentary, that explore philosophical arguments and often address a genuine problem in life. The value of the book is in its simplicity in both format and tone: Each thought experiment is accompanied by commentary that explains importance of the experiment, and questions to provoke thought and discussion, all encapsulated within two pages. The book is direct, clear and conversational but does not dilute difficult ideas.

Honoring and Celebrating Tom and Nancy Regan

In 2016, the board of the Culture & Animals Foundation (CAF) invited activists, thinkers, and artists who’d been influenced by the work of the animal rights philosopher Tom Regan, and his wife and partner Nancy, to reflect on their legacy and that of the Culture & Animals Foundation. This video features Peter Singer, author of Animal Liberation, the late philosopher R. G. Frey, philosopher Gary Comstock, author Kim Stallwood, and philosopher Nathan Nobis.

1000 Word Philosophy

Here is a current complete list of entries at 1000 Word Philosophy; all that I've read so far have been excellent!

1000 Words on Ethics and Abortion

The Ethics of Abortion

Author: Nathan Nobis
Category: Ethics
Word Count: 1000

Abortion involves the intentional killing of a fetus to end a pregnancy. These fetuses are human, biologically.1 It seems that fetuses are beings, albeit completely dependent beings: what else would they be? So, abortion involves the intentional killing of a human being. Killing human beings is often deeply wrong, so is abortion wrong? If so, when? And why? In this essay, we’ll look at some potential answers to these questions.

800 Words on Ethics and Abortion

800 words on abortion, for The Philosophers' Magazine, Issue 72 on "50 New Thoughts in Philosophy":

ABORTION

Nathan Nobis is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA USA, and author of many articles on topics in bioethics, including abortion.

Abortion involves killing a fetus to end a pregnancy. These fetuses are human, biologically, and are beings. So, abortion involves the killing of a human being, which is usually wrong. So is abortion wrong?