Consider the traditional anti-abortion argument: P1: Killing…

Question Answered step-by-step Consider the traditional anti-abortion argument: P1: Killing… Consider the traditional anti-abortion argument:P1: Killing innocent human beings is wrong. ​P2: The fetus is an innocent human being.​C: Therefore, killing the fetus is wrong.​Some authors contend that this argument commits the equivocation fallacy. Mary Anne Warren, for example, has argued that “human being” has two different meanings in the above argument. In P1, Warren argues that “human being” in P1 means something like “person, or member of the moral community” or (extensionally put) “the set of beings with full and equal moral rights” (p.52). In contrast, “human being” in P2 is said to mean genetically human or having human DNA.Discuss whether the argument does commit the equivocation fallacy by completing the following tasks:State whether you think the traditional argument for abortion commits the fallacy of equivocation. Note, you are not discussing your position on abortion; your focus instead is simply on whether this argument is fallacious. It is possible that abortion is morally wrong, but its wrongness is not proven by this argument.If you think the argument commits the fallacy, then explain why it commits the fallacy. In giving your explanation, (i) state what effect on the argument is produced by the fact that “human” takes two different meanings in the argument, and (ii) state the extension and/or intension of the two different instances of “human”.If you think the argument does not commit the fallacy, then explain why it does not. In giving your explanation, (i) explain what single sense of ‘human” is used in both arguments, and (ii) state the extension and/or intension of the term “human” used in both premises.  Arts & Humanities Philosophy PHIL 1010 Share QuestionEmailCopy link Comments (0)