 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Crim112Shultz
Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 14th, 2006 05:48 am |
|
The most controversial moral issue of our time may well be the issue of abortion. The Supreme Court's liberal ruling has not diminished the vigor of debate. The very mention of the issue can trigger emotional outbursts. Most people tend to gravitate towards polar attitudes: "Anything less than abortion on demand is a denial of the most basic right of women" or "Any form of abortion at any stage of pregnancy is premediated murder." In taking such positions, they close their minds to the complexities of the issues and miss the many distinctions that must be made. Any meaningful discussion of abortions must address itself to at least these fundatmental questions: Does a woman have absolute rights over her body or are there limitations on those rights? When does life begin? At what stage of prenatal development, if any, is the fetus properly regarded as a person? (This is a crucial one in the law because at the moment a person is present, the issue of civil rights arises.) Are there sufficient differences amoung the various kinds of abortion cases to call for different moral judgements? For example, is the case fo the 14- year-old victim of rape different from that of the wealthy, childless society matron? Are either of those cases different from that of the poor woman who already has ten children or from that of the young married working woman? Discuss the morality of abortion....
|
crim112Bliss
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 21st, 2006 05:15 am |
|
Schultz! You're so cool for writting that entire assignment on the board!!! Haha, just kidding! In response though, I'll answer the first question:
First we must decide if a woman “has absolute rights over her body, or if there are limitations on those rights.” Let’s first turn it around and ask; does a man have absolute rights over his body? Of course he does. That immediately leads into the question of whether the unborn child has the same rights that the parents do. If the mother has absolute rights, then where does that leave the unborn child? I say that as long as the child is connected to the mother or if it can not survive on its own then it is not its own being, and therefore, the unborn child does not have it’s own rights. Granted, a woman should have absolute freedom of her own body, until it interferes with the rights of another being (the unborn child that is developed enough to survive outside the womb).
So I suppose, in essence, the only limits that a woman should have on the choices she makes regarding her body are those that involve "third trimester" abortions, which I think the majority of people, on both sides of the argument will agree with.
|
Current time is 10:22 am | |
|
|
|
|
