Rawls does not have to be explicit about gender or sex issues to be on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate. If we examine Rawls’ principles of justice and his veil of ignorance, we recognize that his logic rips through much of the usual justification for pro-life legality, even in the famous Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. Since a person behind the veil might be a pregnant woman, cannot rely on specific moral beliefs, and must be able to have self-respect when the veil is lifted; Rawls is unmistakably pro-choice. Furthermore, in terms of other in vogue political philosophies, neither utilitarianism nor Nozickian political philosophy are better equipped to handle this thorny issue.

Included in

Philosophy Commons