As abortion is one of the most controversial topics, there has been a lot of debate about it, whether people are opposing or defending abortion. There is one worldview that defends the idea of abortion, which is the secular worldview. The secular worldview is people who view things based on human logic, understanding, intuition and reason, and it is not adopted from spiritual teachings or religion. According to the secular worldview, abortion is right because of women’s right, fetus in the womb is not yet human, and rape or incest. Abortion is a matter of life and death, which took the life of an unborn child.
They are an unwed couple expecting a child. The second part of this iron is that they are considering having an abortion, which is very frowned upon in their religion. As for the situational irony, the story is told from a third-person perspective but mainly focuses on Lane. The reader can see Lane’s thoughts and actions but can see only Sheri’s actions. The reader finds that Lane has a larger conflict than just the abortion because they are able to look into Lane’s thoughts.
Abortion,which is defined as a deliberate termination of a human, is one of the most debatable issues in society. Abortion is about allowing women the right to make choices about when they want to have children, in relation to their age,health, financial stability or if they were raped.There are many reasons to why a woman might want to get an abortion and it should not be up to the Government to determine the personal right of what a woman wants to do with her own body, especially if that woman can not afford to care for the child. Moreover, this argument is a matter of morals, those who see it allowable should be provided with the means to do so but others who don't see it allowable don't have to choose to give up on a child. Those kids who are not aborted sometimes grow up in a destructive environment and their basic needs are not provided. There are many reasons why some people are against abortion, and there are also many reasons as to why some people advocate abortion.
Deontological Ethical Theory states that a person has duties to god, oneself, and duties to others. We all know that we have this duty, and we know this intuitively without deriving it from any more basic moral principles. A duty theorist would also agree that abortion is morally wrong. They believe that it is our duty to others and ourselves to care for other human beings. Abortion is taking away a human life and would be wrong.
Two problems arise from this statement. The first is that this statement relies on the assumption that parents will want to abort a foetus with a severe birth defect and hence in fear of this recommends that parents be denied the choice for prenatal testing altogether. It is not fair to eliminate the right to choice that the parents have based on a preconceived expectation. The second problem is that the statement automatically appears to assume that abortion is a morally wrong outcome whereas this is not always the case, as justified by my use of the act utilitarianism moral
One circumstance would be abortion is justified if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape on the mother. Second the abortion is justified in the case, that if the pregnancy is carried to term it may be fatal to the mother. I also considered two objections to these arguments; Rape is a terrible crime and is morally wrong, but murdering another person is by far a worse crime and even more morally wrong; and a fetus has a right to life because it is as much of a person as you or I. To which I included my own response to these objections; Abortion cannot be considered murder because abortion is legal in Canada, and the mother’s right to life and health are more important than that of a potential person’s. I do believe that at the very late stages of pregnancy that abortion is wrong and should not be performed, however under these specific circumstances I do believe abortion is morally
Furthermore, many practitioners are against the legislation that would allow voluntary euthanasia due to their moral feelings. If the law did decide to permit euthanasia, however, they may allow doctors who are against the practice to opt out, and instead other medical practitioners will be written into the bill, as is the case with abortion in many societies. If this was included in the Bill, then this would be an instance where the law has taken the backseat to the autonomy of medical practitioners and allow their moral viewpoints to override the law, therefore it is clear here that the law has a connection with morality and therefore it is far from being morally
The supporters of both sides of this topic have many motives to clone or not to clone. In general, I am against cloning in all cases because the spirit is transferred to us through God because of love and our parents transferred it to us through love also through relation. Why some curious scientists have playing the role of God in their laboratories? Reproductive cloning would reduce the sense of uniqueness of an individual. It would interrupt deeply and widely convictions concerning human individuality and liberty, and could lead to a reduction of clones in comparison with non-clones.
The ideas behind this moral distinction is that in passive euthanasia the doctors are not actively killing anyone but they are just not saving the patients. Most people think that euthanasia can be justifiable, when the patients are facing incurable disease, undergoing suffer, terminally ill and requests for euthanasia as their last wishes. For instance, Somerville (2010) argued that it is important to respect the people’s right of self-determination and autonomy. In other words, people should have the right to choose their time of dying but the state have prevented and stop them from doing it.
But this is problematic for two reasons: first we started our discussion with making distinction between abortion and contraception. Second, this is very unintuitive if one think that even sperms are persons and consuming contraceptive pills are killing. Even some scholars in Abrahamic religions who advocate the idea of ensoulments do not support the personhood of sperms! In response, one can appeal to the theory of degrees of personhood explaining that sperms can be person but in a very vague sense. However, one can again object that the whole point is that when exactly personhood