In your paper, you should explain in clear detail all of the readings you’re covering.

in this paper I will ultimately side with Kant’s ethics to argue that abortion is morally problematic yet still permissible.

“abortion,” use the following readings
Vaughn, Doing Ethics, pp. 221-235 (from Chapter 8, “Abortion”)
Vaughn, Doing Ethics, pp. 237-247 (Judith Jarvis Thompson, “A Defense of Abortion”)
Vaughn, Doing Ethics, pp. 247-256 (Mary Anne Warren, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”)
Once youve chosen your topic, youre ready to start writing. Please be sure to fulfill all of the following:
1. In your paper, you should explain in clear detail all of the readings you’re covering.
The first reading by Vaughn is just an overview of the debate. Summarize that briefly.
The second and third readings are authors debating different sides of the ethical issue. Explain both sides of the debate offered in those readings.
2. In your paper, you should make sure to explain, in detail, how the two sides of the debate you’re covering are connected to the bigger ethical theories covered in this competency
Here’s what I mean.
In readings on a topic like “euthanasia”, two of the authors will be arguing with each other, taking opposite sides on the issue.
What ethical theories are the authors using? Kantian ethics? Utilitarianism? Natural law ethics? A combination of these? None of these? Explain in detail, using the readings on those ethical theories we did earlier in the course.
3. Your paper should respond to the readings you’ve analyzed in order to create a rational argument of your own about which side of the debate is right and why.
Which author is right, and which one is wrong, about the topic, and why? Or are both sides wrong, or right, somehow? Why?
But no matter what, you must not simply state what you believe. You should respond to the two sides of the debate you’re covering.
And you should back up your stance with reasons to justify your position and convince others youre right.
Make sure to explain whether the argument you are providing is based on utilitarianism, Kants ethics, natural law ethics, or some combination, and how.
4. Then, your paper should offer a counter-claim. That is, offer a potential objection that someone could have to the stance youve chosen.
Let’s say you are arguing that abortion is morally wrong.
An objection would go against your position, and try to find weaknesses in your argument
5. Then, respond to the potential objection to defend yourself.
Why are you still right?
Are there any aspects of the objection youd be willing to agree with?
Why or why not?