Jonathan Fuqua

Is abortion homicide, the morally unjust killing of a person? Should it be illegal? There is widespread disagreement. However, there is a way through the impasse. It is not necessary to establish whether abortion is homicide, only whether it substantially risks homicide. If abortion presents this risk of harm, then lawmakers have a powerful reason to criminalize it. This paper defends The Prevention Argument: if abortion substantially risks committing homicide after 10 weeks’ gestation, then lawmakers should criminalize such abortions to prevent the foreseeable harm of mass homicide. Why 10 weeks? Because it is plausible that abortions after 10 weeks endanger an innocent person’s life and, if so, the harm preventive case for criminalizing them is strong. This argument deserves a hearing because it has a modest burden of proof and relies on accepted normative principles like the harm principle. It could also be extended to earlier abortions.

Aquinas is sometimes taken to hold a foundationalist theory of knowledge. So, for example, Nicholas Wolterstorff says, “Foundationalism has been the reigning theory of theories in the West since the high Middle Ages. It can be traced back as far as Aristotle, and since the Middle Ages vast amounts of philosophical thought have been devoted to elaborating and defending it‥ ‥ Aquinas offers one classic version of foundationalism.” And Alvin Plantinga says, “we can get a better understanding of Aquinas … if we see [him] as accepting some version of classical foundationalism. This is a picture or total way of looking at faith, knowledge, justified belief, rationality, and allied topics. This picture has been enormously popular in Western thought; and despite a substantial opposing ground-swell, I think it remains the dominant way of thinking about these topics.”

In this paper I will take it for granted that Zagzebski's position articulates a broadly Catholic perspective, and that Plantinga's position accurately represents a broadly Calvinist one. But I will argue that so construed, the Catholic and the Calvinist are much closer than Zagzebski implies: both views are person-based in an important sense of that term; both are internalist on Zagzebski's usage and externalist on the standard usage; and Plantinga's position is consistent with the social elements that Zagzebski stresses in her view. In the second part of the paper I will identify what I think is the real issue between Zagzebski and Plantinga. Namely, Zagzebski thinks that knowledge requires epistemic responsibility, in the sense that instances of knowledge must be appropriately praiseworthy. Plantinga thinks that no such condition is required for knowledge or warranted belief. I will argue that on this issue Zagzebski is right, and that her virtue approach gives us resources for seeing why. Finally, I will look at the consequences for religious knowledge. Here I will argue that the consequences are minimal. Even if knowledge requires responsibility, Plantinga can still make a good case that religious belief is properly basic. And even if religious belief is properly basic, natural theology can still have an important role in the justification of religious belief.