Much of it is divided down the middle, and the Pro-Choice and Pro-Life stances can be clearly viewed throughout whatever work one may be reading. Often, the bias is so strong throughout literature; it is hard not to read with a persuaded mind. The Ethics of Abortion acknowledges this issue stating that many of “those who are pro-choice call their opponents ‘anti-choice’” and “those who are pro-life refer to those who favor legalized abortion as ‘pro-abortion’” (Kaczor). This book, unlike many others, strives to not use this “loaded language”, because it has a way of instantly making the reader’s biases block their mind. This, therefore, is the type of information that will be focused on for presentation in this paper.
Megan Best (2014) says, “We need to remember, then, that the Hobby Lobby case is not about all contraceptives, but only those that challenge the ethical values of those that value human life from the time of fertilization”. Hobby Lobby is a Christian based company who values the human life beginning the moment an egg is fertilized. Because of this belief, Hobby Lobby denied coverage for specific birth control options such as hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUD’s) and morning-after pills. Hobby Lobby believes this
Mary Anne Warren is a well-known American philosopher who has influenced the argument of the controversial issue, abortion. Today, I will be supporting Warren’s belief and theory on abortion solely being the woman’s choice and will do so by refuting other theories and philosophers including; John T Noonan, Judith Thompson, and Don Marquis. John T. Noonan revolves his argument of abortion around the idea of conception. According to Noonan, abortion is morally wrong because a being comes into existence at the point of conception. Also, being conceived by human parents automatically classifies the fetus as a human as well.
OBJECTION REPLY Having argued for the view that divine command theory provides reasoning against termination, I now wish to consider rival views, as this theory is faced with criticism. How can one base a life altering decision on the belief that there is a higher power if they do not necessarily believe in such an omnipotent being? This response fails because the act of murder is ill-viewed not only by God but my all following moral ethics. Judith Jarvis Thomson claims in A Defense of Abortion located in our textbook that “Moreover, in killing the child, one would be killing an innocent person, for the child has committed no crime (Thomson 189)”.
They also believe that a fetus is not a human life, therefore, they have no individual rights. Lastly, they strongly believe that the government should provide taxpayer funded abortions for women who cannot afford them ("Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs"). On the other hand, Republican views on abortion are opposite of the Democratic view. They believe that the human life begins at conception; disagreeing with the Democratic belief that a fetus is not a human life. Republicans biggest belief is that abortion is murder ("Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs").
The Cider House Rules movie seems to challenge the principles of the church and their beliefs through the personality of Dr. Wilbur Larch who defenses the right of women to make their own decision with respect to pregnancy and helps them to get through the abortion, thus performing the role of God (Holden). The doctor does not believe that this act is an indication of the negative human nature from the position of experience. Another view is reflected in the movie by Homer who views everything from the position of a child and believes that the abortion tends to be a wrong action and should not be justified. Thus, the film directors might appeal to the idea that the Christianity’s view of human nature appears to be immature enough, and one needs to reconsider the principles underlying the identification of the positive and negative aspects of human nature. As a result, for people it is sometimes useful to play God and to determine how the life would go further.
What is abortion? Abortion is the voluntary process of ending a fetus’ life during pregnancy, naturally, through medication, or through a medical intervention. Why is abortion a moral dilemma? By definition a moral dilemma “involves conflicts between moral requirements.” (McConnell, 2014). In fact, when a person faces conflicting options on what to do in certain moral situations and when each option is feasible but not simultaneously doable with another option, the person in this case is facing a moral dilemma and he/she is “condemned to moral
There are many catholics, christians, and other people of religion that use birth control, even though powerful leaders of their church condemn it. Usually, the religions are pro-natalist, and believe that sex should only be performed when attempting to conceive a child. But according to the Guttmacher Institute, more 99 percent of women ages 15-44 who have had sexual intercourse had used some form of contraceptive. This means that the women that are a part of these religions have too used contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies. This statistic trumps the statement that religion is against contraceptive methods.
In other words, the Christians and Muslims share the same sins, this parallel between the two religions is a harsh criticism of the state of Christianity in the early 14th century. However, since Europeans understood their religion was ordained by God, then the only difference between Islam and Christianity was that God would allow the Christians a second chance to rise above their sins to become better than their enemies. Only then could Christianity reconquer the Holy Land. However, the last shock factor Mandeville adds to this scene is when he writes how shameful that Islam should, “keep their false law better than we do of Jesus Christ. ” Mandeville a Christian, acknowledges that the Sultan, a member of a
He states that if a women wants to obtain an abortion, they would have to tell a doctor. You would also need to go to a clinic or a hospital. So, therefore it was not private at all. His dissent also stated that the fourteenth amendment should only protect people from loosing their freedom when they do not follow laws. "Almost no one.
When the counter arguments of Pro-Choice reasoning, Pro-Life viewpoint, is analyzed there are multiple logical fallacies and false statements which are used which make their argument less valid. Firstly, the Pro-Life advocates use the texas sharpshooter fallacy when making the point that abortions cause women to have greater physiological damage later on in life. They use statistics that specifically support their argument without addressing any other specifics: “A 2008 peer-reviewed study published in the Scandinavian Journal of Public Health found that "Young adult women who undergo... abortion may be at increased risk for subsequent depression"” (Pro & Con Arguments). This is very misleading data because there is also ‘data’ which shows that women who don’t get abortions have physiological and emotional damage: “A Sep. 2013 peer-reviewed study comparing the mental health of women who received abortions to women denied abortions found that women who were denied abortions "felt more regret and anger" and "less relief and happiness" than women who had abortions” (Pro & Con Arguments). Since data can be used for both sides of the argument it makes this point completely invalid.
If a being has a right to life then it is wrong to kill it. Abortion is the termination of a fetus; therefore abortion is wrong (Thomson, 48). Much of the debate on whether if abortion is permissible or not gets caught up on this first premise that fetuses obtain personhood at conception and to deny this premise would be to claim that personhood does not start at conception which would make this argument fail. Thompson does not believe this claim that personhood is achieved at conception, but she feels that the permissibility of abortion can still be argued for even if premise (1) were true. She does this by attacking premise (3); that if a being has a right to life, then it is wrong to kill it.
Many people question the morality of abortion and several religious aspects come into play about the legalization of abortion. However, the separation of church and state makes any religious aspect invalid when it comes to legalizing anything. Furthermore, Democrats feel that abortion can be justified in cases such as rape or when a woman’s health is endangered and even teen pregnancy, so women should have the right to an abortion. Though deciding to get an abortion can be a very difficult decision, Democrats have agreed that this decision should be between a woman and her doctor without government interference, specifically Republican men who will never be faced with this decision and have no medical experience. This is why Democrats call it “women’s right to choose” and not “Republican’s right to deny” when it comes to abortion since it is about women specifically.