Friday, June 22, 2007
It is wrong to commit murder under any circumstance
Associate Justice Benjamin Cardozo was correct in stating "When two or more are overtaken by a common disaster, there is no right on the part of one to save the lives of some by killing another." There is no law that says if you or the group of people you are with are suffering from a dire situation, it is okay for you to murder someone to save your life. As a person in authority Holmes has the responsibility to provide for the people on his boat. However, his authority should not give him the authority to choose someone else to die. Also he should not have ordered other men to commit murder by throwing people overboard. With a circumstance as the one they were in, each individual should have been considered equal to every other person on the boat. Even if one person would have given up their life, someone would have still had to commit murder. Sometimes people encountering difficult situations say things they would not normally say. Would a person still voluntarily give up their life if they knew that they would be rescued the following day? Most likely they wouldn't. If no one volunteers themselves to jump overboard then the whole boat should go down together. "A captain goes down with his ship" is an old saying that should have been the way that this incident played out.
Sometimes Pro-Life, Sometimes Pro-Choice
Abortion is an ugly political topic that even the closest of friends and families avoid discussing due to the touchiness of it. Discussions of abortion have split families and friends; even caused the death of some people due to the passionate beliefs by some people. To be consistently Pro-Life is to believe that a babies life is just as valuable as the mothers and must be protected at all costs. With this, I firmly believe that one cannot consistently be live that (a) a woman has no right to an abortion, (b) a human embryo or fetus has an inviolable right to life, and (c) a woman may have an abortion if it is necessary to save her own life.
(a) A woman has no right to an abortion. When an individual makes this strong of a statement, they are leaving no room for if, and, or but. They are truly pro-life and believe that under no circumstance shall that child's life be terminated; not due to the health of the mother OR the baby, circumstances surrounding the conception, or the capacity of the mother to provide a healthy nourishing womb for the fetus to develop in.
(b) A human embryo or fetus has an inviolable right to life. Websters Dictionary defines inviolable as "secure from assault or trespass." This again leaves no room for exceptions. To have this belief is to believe that the human embryo is COMPLETELY secure from ANY assault. So in going with "inviolable", to perform an abortion on a fetus, for any reason, would be an assault against it and would be infringing on it's inviolable right to life.
(c) A woman may have an abortion if it is necessary to save her own life. This statement right here says that an unborn fetus does NOT have an inviolable right to life and that a woman DOES have the right to abortion. This makes the third statement "A woman may have an abortion if it is necessary to save her own life" inconsistent with (a) and (b). If the unborn fetus is threatening the mother, it becomes necessary(from a pro-choice standpoint) to terminate the pregnancy to ensure the health and safety of the mother. To have the beliefs of (a) or (b) leaves no room for protection of the mother during pregnancy and makes full-term pregnancy the only option, no matter what.
To get into a pro-life/pro-choice debate was not part of this assignment so I will leave off with this, you can't be consistent with all three of the above beliefs; first two yes, the third one no. If you are pro-life, that is your stand consistently, not part of the time or when it fits your needs.
Matt Smith
Week 6 blog
(a) A woman has no right to an abortion. When an individual makes this strong of a statement, they are leaving no room for if, and, or but. They are truly pro-life and believe that under no circumstance shall that child's life be terminated; not due to the health of the mother OR the baby, circumstances surrounding the conception, or the capacity of the mother to provide a healthy nourishing womb for the fetus to develop in.
(b) A human embryo or fetus has an inviolable right to life. Websters Dictionary defines inviolable as "secure from assault or trespass." This again leaves no room for exceptions. To have this belief is to believe that the human embryo is COMPLETELY secure from ANY assault. So in going with "inviolable", to perform an abortion on a fetus, for any reason, would be an assault against it and would be infringing on it's inviolable right to life.
(c) A woman may have an abortion if it is necessary to save her own life. This statement right here says that an unborn fetus does NOT have an inviolable right to life and that a woman DOES have the right to abortion. This makes the third statement "A woman may have an abortion if it is necessary to save her own life" inconsistent with (a) and (b). If the unborn fetus is threatening the mother, it becomes necessary(from a pro-choice standpoint) to terminate the pregnancy to ensure the health and safety of the mother. To have the beliefs of (a) or (b) leaves no room for protection of the mother during pregnancy and makes full-term pregnancy the only option, no matter what.
To get into a pro-life/pro-choice debate was not part of this assignment so I will leave off with this, you can't be consistent with all three of the above beliefs; first two yes, the third one no. If you are pro-life, that is your stand consistently, not part of the time or when it fits your needs.
Matt Smith
Week 6 blog
Abortion and Convienently Ambivilent Morals
Brenda Porter: June 22, 2007
Abortion by definition is absolute because to have an abortion is to end life with no options once acted upon. To make a decision about abortion considering every part of myself: the physical, the mental, the emotional, the logical, and the moralistic, can never be absolutely consistent no matter what side of the issue I choose. I say this because I am human, and I have two minds, a logical and reasoning mind, and an emotional and irrational mind. Every principle and moral belief I have is subject to exception, so therefore can never be consistent absolutely.
The three beliefs in question proposed in the text, the first being a woman has no right to an abortion, cannot be consistent absolutely. To say so, one would also have to say that women could be sexually assaulted, impregnated, and forced to carry the pregnancy to full term due to an act of violence upon them. I would never agree with the latter statement and in my most unbiased view of the world around me I do not believe that the majority of society would either. Therefore, it is inconsistent.
Second, the belief that a human embryo or fetus has an inviolable right to life is inconsistent with the laws of nature. The law above most being Darwin’s Law of Survival of the Fittest in which no living thing has any protected guarantee, and there are not rules that govern such things. A fetus is a living being, yes, but does it have a guarantee in the scope of life on its most grand scale to have protection to live, no. A fetus has no more guarantee to live life that an ameba, or a newborn zebra dieing in the jaws of a lion has. I must consider the words “having a right to life”. Every living thing has a right to life, but not every living thing gets to live. Therefore, it is inconsistent.
Finally, the belief that a woman may have an abortion if it is necessary to save her own life is an inconsistency in itself. To make exceptions, no matter what the reasoning are still an exception and an inconsistency. Just like taking justice into our own hands when our own life is in danger. For example, a gun is loaded and being pointed at my head and I have the opportunity to grab a steel bar and bash the brains out of the person attempting to shoot me. That is an exception, because most of the time I would not kill another person. In this case, I would be justified, just as cases where abortion is justified to save the mother’s life. Once there is made a place for it to be acceptable in one case there will always remain a gray area.
Throughout life everyone must make difficult decisions. The decisions I make everyday effect myself, my life, and also of those around me. With that in mind, every decision I make, especially a major life decision like considering having an abortion, must take into account my principles, values, and feelings about all sides of the issue. Also, because I live in the United States, I grew up in a middle class Catholic family and neighborhood, because I am Catholic, because I love children and think they are our most important resource, I must also consider what impact my choice will have on these factors, not only in the short term, but also in the long reaching effects my choice will have not only on my life, but what about the lives of those who will follow me. Choices such as this are difficult, emotionally charged, and there really is no right side. Abortion may be the best thing one specific moment in life, but it may be completely the wrong thing at another moment. That is life. We never know from one moment to the next how we feel or what we think because our situation can change as quickly and to put constraints on any options for any being, human or animal, is not anyone’s authority.
Abortion by definition is absolute because to have an abortion is to end life with no options once acted upon. To make a decision about abortion considering every part of myself: the physical, the mental, the emotional, the logical, and the moralistic, can never be absolutely consistent no matter what side of the issue I choose. I say this because I am human, and I have two minds, a logical and reasoning mind, and an emotional and irrational mind. Every principle and moral belief I have is subject to exception, so therefore can never be consistent absolutely.
The three beliefs in question proposed in the text, the first being a woman has no right to an abortion, cannot be consistent absolutely. To say so, one would also have to say that women could be sexually assaulted, impregnated, and forced to carry the pregnancy to full term due to an act of violence upon them. I would never agree with the latter statement and in my most unbiased view of the world around me I do not believe that the majority of society would either. Therefore, it is inconsistent.
Second, the belief that a human embryo or fetus has an inviolable right to life is inconsistent with the laws of nature. The law above most being Darwin’s Law of Survival of the Fittest in which no living thing has any protected guarantee, and there are not rules that govern such things. A fetus is a living being, yes, but does it have a guarantee in the scope of life on its most grand scale to have protection to live, no. A fetus has no more guarantee to live life that an ameba, or a newborn zebra dieing in the jaws of a lion has. I must consider the words “having a right to life”. Every living thing has a right to life, but not every living thing gets to live. Therefore, it is inconsistent.
Finally, the belief that a woman may have an abortion if it is necessary to save her own life is an inconsistency in itself. To make exceptions, no matter what the reasoning are still an exception and an inconsistency. Just like taking justice into our own hands when our own life is in danger. For example, a gun is loaded and being pointed at my head and I have the opportunity to grab a steel bar and bash the brains out of the person attempting to shoot me. That is an exception, because most of the time I would not kill another person. In this case, I would be justified, just as cases where abortion is justified to save the mother’s life. Once there is made a place for it to be acceptable in one case there will always remain a gray area.
Throughout life everyone must make difficult decisions. The decisions I make everyday effect myself, my life, and also of those around me. With that in mind, every decision I make, especially a major life decision like considering having an abortion, must take into account my principles, values, and feelings about all sides of the issue. Also, because I live in the United States, I grew up in a middle class Catholic family and neighborhood, because I am Catholic, because I love children and think they are our most important resource, I must also consider what impact my choice will have on these factors, not only in the short term, but also in the long reaching effects my choice will have not only on my life, but what about the lives of those who will follow me. Choices such as this are difficult, emotionally charged, and there really is no right side. Abortion may be the best thing one specific moment in life, but it may be completely the wrong thing at another moment. That is life. We never know from one moment to the next how we feel or what we think because our situation can change as quickly and to put constraints on any options for any being, human or animal, is not anyone’s authority.
Abortion
Carrie Egging
June 22, 2007
In my mind, abortion is wrong. I believe that abortion should only be used in extreme cases where the mother’s health is in jeopardy. There is no reason why a person can’t go through the pregnancy and then give up the child for adoption if the person decides they are unable to care for the child. I understand that some sacrifices might have to be made from a person’s normal routine. An athlete may not be able to compete for a year, a musician may not be able to march, a partier may not be able to go to parties and drink all night, but in most situations, this person did something to be put in this situation.
I understand that it is possible that a woman could become pregnant from the offense of rape, but what crime did the child that this women now carry do to deserve not to even get a chance at life? I know that it would not be fair for this woman to have to bear this child, but I believe that it would be worse to know that after such a bad thing happened then to turn around and murder a sinless individual.
When an individual has become pregnant for actions that they should not have been doing, I do believe that it is not right that the baby should suffer and never get a chance to live just because two individuals couldn’t wait till they were stable enough to care for a child and wanted the easy way out of taking care of him or her. Or the woman got pregnant and didn’t want to tell her parents about it, so she got an abortion to cover up her actions. Where in all of this did the baby do anything wrong to deserve to die because its mother and father were not ready to have a child? It is almost selfish for people to do and I could never agree with it.
As one could probably tell from reading my essay, I do believe that a human embryo or fetus has right to life. They are a living individual even thought they have not seen light or breathed fresh air yet. These fetus’ that are aborted could have one day grown up to discover a cure for cancer or invent something that improved the quality of life, but we will never know because they were never given any opportunity at all.
Once again I believe that abortion should never be acceptable unless the mother’s life is in danger. The fetus should always be given a chance at life. And adoption is always an option if the mother and father could not care for the child. It is time for people to take responsibility for some of their actions and stop trying to take the easy way out and taking the life of child before they have an opportunity to live.
June 22, 2007
In my mind, abortion is wrong. I believe that abortion should only be used in extreme cases where the mother’s health is in jeopardy. There is no reason why a person can’t go through the pregnancy and then give up the child for adoption if the person decides they are unable to care for the child. I understand that some sacrifices might have to be made from a person’s normal routine. An athlete may not be able to compete for a year, a musician may not be able to march, a partier may not be able to go to parties and drink all night, but in most situations, this person did something to be put in this situation.
I understand that it is possible that a woman could become pregnant from the offense of rape, but what crime did the child that this women now carry do to deserve not to even get a chance at life? I know that it would not be fair for this woman to have to bear this child, but I believe that it would be worse to know that after such a bad thing happened then to turn around and murder a sinless individual.
When an individual has become pregnant for actions that they should not have been doing, I do believe that it is not right that the baby should suffer and never get a chance to live just because two individuals couldn’t wait till they were stable enough to care for a child and wanted the easy way out of taking care of him or her. Or the woman got pregnant and didn’t want to tell her parents about it, so she got an abortion to cover up her actions. Where in all of this did the baby do anything wrong to deserve to die because its mother and father were not ready to have a child? It is almost selfish for people to do and I could never agree with it.
As one could probably tell from reading my essay, I do believe that a human embryo or fetus has right to life. They are a living individual even thought they have not seen light or breathed fresh air yet. These fetus’ that are aborted could have one day grown up to discover a cure for cancer or invent something that improved the quality of life, but we will never know because they were never given any opportunity at all.
Once again I believe that abortion should never be acceptable unless the mother’s life is in danger. The fetus should always be given a chance at life. And adoption is always an option if the mother and father could not care for the child. It is time for people to take responsibility for some of their actions and stop trying to take the easy way out and taking the life of child before they have an opportunity to live.
Inconsistency-Laura Lukes
Inconsistency
6/22/07
Question #3 p. 453
A person has the choice of being either pro-choice or pro-life, or believing in both sides, not wanting to take a position on just one perspective. Pro-choice is believing that a woman has a right to choose what she wants to do with her body and whether she wants to give a child the chance to live or not. If she wants to get an abortion, she believes she has the right to do so. She also feels that the government cannot tell a woman what is right and wrong about abortion. If a person has a pro-life view on abortion, he or she believes that the child has the right to live no matter how it was conceived. Pro-choice and pro-life views are black and white, but there is a rather large gray area between them. As stated above, some women consider specific parts of each extremity to be verifiable. Such exceptions include rape or the woman’s health, as the Bar Association takes into consideration.
The question as to whether or not the three choices are inconsistent is more dependent on people’s beliefs rather than how the viewpoints are stated. There are three concrete views on abortion. Simply, abortion is wrong and is murder, abortion is the choice of the woman, or abortion is wrong with specific exceptions. Many people find it hard to take a side on this controversial issue due to the emotional nature of life and death. Even the law about abortion in the Texas Penal Code is in the gray area, asserting it is a crime to kill an embryo, but doctors can make exceptions if the woman’s health is in question.
This law shows that rules are clear and consistent, but how people perceive them can be inconsistent. Originally, laws banned abortion because it was dangerous, and the procedure had a high mortality rate. Now it seems the enforcement of the ban on abortion is due to people’s morals.
Overall, laws can be written and enforced consistently, but beliefs on the standards of abortion could be inconsistent. Three different stands on abortion await the population’s opinion, and those are not going to change. Opinions are the inconsistency.
6/22/07
Question #3 p. 453
A person has the choice of being either pro-choice or pro-life, or believing in both sides, not wanting to take a position on just one perspective. Pro-choice is believing that a woman has a right to choose what she wants to do with her body and whether she wants to give a child the chance to live or not. If she wants to get an abortion, she believes she has the right to do so. She also feels that the government cannot tell a woman what is right and wrong about abortion. If a person has a pro-life view on abortion, he or she believes that the child has the right to live no matter how it was conceived. Pro-choice and pro-life views are black and white, but there is a rather large gray area between them. As stated above, some women consider specific parts of each extremity to be verifiable. Such exceptions include rape or the woman’s health, as the Bar Association takes into consideration.
The question as to whether or not the three choices are inconsistent is more dependent on people’s beliefs rather than how the viewpoints are stated. There are three concrete views on abortion. Simply, abortion is wrong and is murder, abortion is the choice of the woman, or abortion is wrong with specific exceptions. Many people find it hard to take a side on this controversial issue due to the emotional nature of life and death. Even the law about abortion in the Texas Penal Code is in the gray area, asserting it is a crime to kill an embryo, but doctors can make exceptions if the woman’s health is in question.
This law shows that rules are clear and consistent, but how people perceive them can be inconsistent. Originally, laws banned abortion because it was dangerous, and the procedure had a high mortality rate. Now it seems the enforcement of the ban on abortion is due to people’s morals.
Overall, laws can be written and enforced consistently, but beliefs on the standards of abortion could be inconsistent. Three different stands on abortion await the population’s opinion, and those are not going to change. Opinions are the inconsistency.
Holmes Case
I disagree with the statements made by Associate Justice, Benjamin Cardozo, concerning the "Holmes" case where crew and passengers experienced extreme dire events that threatened their survival. Justice Cardozo is of the opinion that under these circumstances it was not justifiable to sacrifice one human life for another, and that all should have perished or survived. This is a hard statement to agree or disagree with, as for me it would depend on the circumstances of each individual situation. For example, in the "Holmes" case when it was determined that the boat would sink if drastic measures were not taken, I feel they were justified in taking action to save some of them. In this case all people on board even crew members should be considered equals. The fairest way to determine who has to jump overboard would have been to hold a lottery. I feel that if a group of people is facing eminent death it should be an option for them to hold a lottery. If it is the consensus of the majority to have a lottery drawing resulting in the sacrifice of one or more, they should not be punished for taking this action. It must be a majority consensus and all other options for survival must have been tried and exhausted. Humans would like to believe that they are incapable of making such a decision, but under the duress of such inconceivable circumstances this decision could be easier than most of us would like to admit. The question of "Does the harm avoided outweigh the harm caused?" Was it more harmful for all to perish or for some to survive? I feel it would be better for some to survive than all to die. The death of all would result in the suffering of many families, while the survival of some results in less suffering. Some circumstances call for us to do things out of necessity that we probably would not choose to do under normal conditions.
In my opinion, all of the crew members and the captain should have been tried rather than just the one man. The physical description given of the sailor on trial leads you to believe that he would be incapable of carrying out the crime alone. The first mate probably had a large part to do with determining who was sacrificed on board of the vessel. The jury had a tough time rendering the guilty verdict, so this shows that the jury truly saw how tough of a decision it was. The judge gave the man a quite lenient sentence, which leads you to believe the judge didn’t think this man was capable of carrying out the act by himself or that he did not totally disagree with the actions taken by the crew.
Whenever people are faced with life or death decisions they must often act quickly and respond to the situation in a way they feel is in the best interest of all involved. It is difficult to sit in judgement of the decisions made by the parties in the "Holmes case". It is difficult to make decision concerning this case, as there were many stipulations surrounding their situation. No one is able to honestly say how they personally would act until put into the same situation.
In my opinion, all of the crew members and the captain should have been tried rather than just the one man. The physical description given of the sailor on trial leads you to believe that he would be incapable of carrying out the crime alone. The first mate probably had a large part to do with determining who was sacrificed on board of the vessel. The jury had a tough time rendering the guilty verdict, so this shows that the jury truly saw how tough of a decision it was. The judge gave the man a quite lenient sentence, which leads you to believe the judge didn’t think this man was capable of carrying out the act by himself or that he did not totally disagree with the actions taken by the crew.
Whenever people are faced with life or death decisions they must often act quickly and respond to the situation in a way they feel is in the best interest of all involved. It is difficult to sit in judgement of the decisions made by the parties in the "Holmes case". It is difficult to make decision concerning this case, as there were many stipulations surrounding their situation. No one is able to honestly say how they personally would act until put into the same situation.
Abortion - Right & Wrong
Kristin Gebel
Question #3
22 June 2007
There have always been two sides to the abortion issue and in the present day there seems to be even more light shined on the matter. Answering the question, whether women should have the right to decide to have an abortion, I personally have many views. In some ways I believe abortion to be wrong because as we have heard many times before, there is another life to consider. But on the reverse side there are situations such as the mother’s life or rape victims to take into consideration. In all I believe that abortion is wrong. If someone is pregnant mistakenly then they should deal with the consequences, but in certain situations women should have the right to an abortion if needed.
Right away I want to emphasize the fact that women should have the right to decide whether abortion should be legal or not. I personally believe that women should be the deciding factors. I find it hard to take when I see people around asking others to vote no for abortion and the majority of them are male. Men should not be part of the deciding factor. Since men are not caring the child for the nine months of pregnancy or giving birth, I do not think that men should be able to vote on the up coming abortion laws.
Many feel that abortion is wrong and in most situations I agree. When a woman gets pregnant mistakenly it is her duty to go through with the pregnancy. Right now there are many different birth controls out on the market and I feel that it is both the male and female’s responsibility to take the necessary precautions. If someone does not want to get pregnant then there are ways around it, but when someone is careless and ends up pregnant I believe they should follow through with their actions. My friends and I have similar discussions such as this and I always quote, “If you are mature enough to have intercourse without protection then you should be mature enough to deal with the consequences.”
On the flip side there are a few reasons for abortion to be legal. For instance, if a woman is raped I whole heartedly believe that she should have the option of an abortion. She never asked or was willing to be raped and I do not feel that she should have to live with the constant reminder of that horrible day. The same goes for the unborn child. Put yourself in that woman’s shoes, how hard would it be to tell your child they do not have a father because you were a victim of a rapist. I personally would find that very difficult. I do not know, but I am sure there are some women out there that been raped and have gone through with their pregnancy. I applaud those women and give them my at most appreciation, but I still believe that those women should have an option. Let them make the decision.
Another reason for abortion to be legal would be in a situation where the mother’s life is at risk. There are situations where in certain pregnancies problems occur. Now try to place yourself in the mother’s or even the husband’s shoes and imagine that you are getting ready to introduce a new born baby into the world and then the doctor comes and says there are complications and he will only be able to save one life. Who would you choose? Knowing of someone who had to go through a similar situation during her pregnancy, I have seen how hard it is. She already had a one year old and when she was pregnant with their second child she had complications. If it were not for the abortion, she would no longer be here and her one year old would no longer have a mother.
As usual there are still two sides to the abortion issue and I merely stated my opinion toward both. Everyone has the right to voice their own opinions just as I have and I believe that is why the issue on abortion has yet to be resolved. I simply tried to get another opinion out there that says if one mistakenly gets pregnant, abortion should not be the choice, but in certain situations it as previously discussed it may be the only the answer.
Question #3
22 June 2007
There have always been two sides to the abortion issue and in the present day there seems to be even more light shined on the matter. Answering the question, whether women should have the right to decide to have an abortion, I personally have many views. In some ways I believe abortion to be wrong because as we have heard many times before, there is another life to consider. But on the reverse side there are situations such as the mother’s life or rape victims to take into consideration. In all I believe that abortion is wrong. If someone is pregnant mistakenly then they should deal with the consequences, but in certain situations women should have the right to an abortion if needed.
Right away I want to emphasize the fact that women should have the right to decide whether abortion should be legal or not. I personally believe that women should be the deciding factors. I find it hard to take when I see people around asking others to vote no for abortion and the majority of them are male. Men should not be part of the deciding factor. Since men are not caring the child for the nine months of pregnancy or giving birth, I do not think that men should be able to vote on the up coming abortion laws.
Many feel that abortion is wrong and in most situations I agree. When a woman gets pregnant mistakenly it is her duty to go through with the pregnancy. Right now there are many different birth controls out on the market and I feel that it is both the male and female’s responsibility to take the necessary precautions. If someone does not want to get pregnant then there are ways around it, but when someone is careless and ends up pregnant I believe they should follow through with their actions. My friends and I have similar discussions such as this and I always quote, “If you are mature enough to have intercourse without protection then you should be mature enough to deal with the consequences.”
On the flip side there are a few reasons for abortion to be legal. For instance, if a woman is raped I whole heartedly believe that she should have the option of an abortion. She never asked or was willing to be raped and I do not feel that she should have to live with the constant reminder of that horrible day. The same goes for the unborn child. Put yourself in that woman’s shoes, how hard would it be to tell your child they do not have a father because you were a victim of a rapist. I personally would find that very difficult. I do not know, but I am sure there are some women out there that been raped and have gone through with their pregnancy. I applaud those women and give them my at most appreciation, but I still believe that those women should have an option. Let them make the decision.
Another reason for abortion to be legal would be in a situation where the mother’s life is at risk. There are situations where in certain pregnancies problems occur. Now try to place yourself in the mother’s or even the husband’s shoes and imagine that you are getting ready to introduce a new born baby into the world and then the doctor comes and says there are complications and he will only be able to save one life. Who would you choose? Knowing of someone who had to go through a similar situation during her pregnancy, I have seen how hard it is. She already had a one year old and when she was pregnant with their second child she had complications. If it were not for the abortion, she would no longer be here and her one year old would no longer have a mother.
As usual there are still two sides to the abortion issue and I merely stated my opinion toward both. Everyone has the right to voice their own opinions just as I have and I believe that is why the issue on abortion has yet to be resolved. I simply tried to get another opinion out there that says if one mistakenly gets pregnant, abortion should not be the choice, but in certain situations it as previously discussed it may be the only the answer.
Response to #3 Abortion
Michelle Horner
Week 6 Blog
22 June 2007
Abortion Ban
I believe that the propositions in question, “(a) a woman has no right to an abortion, (b) a human embryo or fetus has an inviolable right to life, and (c) a woman may have an abortion if it is necessary to save her own life” (Barnet 453), can be consistent. From my own personal opinion, I do believe that all three of these contentions are true. It is difficult but I do believe that it is consistent for them to be believed concurrently. As with any topic on abortion, the views are difficult to explain. I will explain why these three propositions can be believed to be true concurrently without being inconsistent.
The first contention is held by many people; however, it is also discounted by a strong number of people as well. To say that a woman has no right to an abortion is a strong view. The wording of these contentions is important to the view that they can be consistent with one another. If this contention said that a woman has absolutely no right to an abortion, these views could not possibly be consistently held. This contention doesn’t state an absolute; it does state simply that she has no right to an abortion. This can mean that she has no legal, moral, justifiable right, among many other things. In my view, I believe that a baby’s life begins at conception because without going through the stages before live birth, none of us would be here. The stages of pregnancy are vital to producing human life. If we are given the option to do as we please with that life, we could, potentially, cease to exist.
The second contention also has vital wording, wording that is important to not only the contention, but also in connecting the three contentions. Stating that an embryo has an inviolable right to life is essentially saying that a woman has no right to an abortion. Fetal life is sacred and is a life that must be protected. From the moment of conception, a mother’s actions can severely alter the life of the child that is born from her. For example, one of my good friends has a sister that just had an unplanned pregnancy. We were all worried because she is a heavy drinker and smoker. I believe that she was able to cease drinking, but she still smoked about two and a half packs of cigarettes a day. Her baby was just born yesterday; one of the first questions I asked my friend was if the baby was healthy. I found out that the baby was taken away for his first six hours because he was born with low oxygen levels in his blood due to her heavy smoking. The effects on a baby during pregnancy are so vital to that baby; it should be given the right to life.
The third contention is the most important to distinguish when deciding if these three contentions can be consistent. The best way that I know how to explain this contention to give reasons why it can be consistent with the previous two is to compare this situation to that of self-defense. In self defense, a person has the right to defend their life from a person threatening that life. This right does not mean that the person must choose to take the life of the other; they may have a strong belief that killing is wrong and let the other person kill them. It is the same situation with pregnancy. When the baby inside is threatening the life of the mother, she should be given the opportunity, as with self defense, to save her own life. If she believes in the life of her child more, she should also be given the right to die in order to save her baby’s life. With the issue of self defense, our society believes that we do not have the right to kill another, but we may in self defense. With these contentions a mother does not have the right to an abortion because the embryo has the right to life, but if necessary to save her own life, she may have an abortion.
Week 6 Blog
22 June 2007
Abortion Ban
I believe that the propositions in question, “(a) a woman has no right to an abortion, (b) a human embryo or fetus has an inviolable right to life, and (c) a woman may have an abortion if it is necessary to save her own life” (Barnet 453), can be consistent. From my own personal opinion, I do believe that all three of these contentions are true. It is difficult but I do believe that it is consistent for them to be believed concurrently. As with any topic on abortion, the views are difficult to explain. I will explain why these three propositions can be believed to be true concurrently without being inconsistent.
The first contention is held by many people; however, it is also discounted by a strong number of people as well. To say that a woman has no right to an abortion is a strong view. The wording of these contentions is important to the view that they can be consistent with one another. If this contention said that a woman has absolutely no right to an abortion, these views could not possibly be consistently held. This contention doesn’t state an absolute; it does state simply that she has no right to an abortion. This can mean that she has no legal, moral, justifiable right, among many other things. In my view, I believe that a baby’s life begins at conception because without going through the stages before live birth, none of us would be here. The stages of pregnancy are vital to producing human life. If we are given the option to do as we please with that life, we could, potentially, cease to exist.
The second contention also has vital wording, wording that is important to not only the contention, but also in connecting the three contentions. Stating that an embryo has an inviolable right to life is essentially saying that a woman has no right to an abortion. Fetal life is sacred and is a life that must be protected. From the moment of conception, a mother’s actions can severely alter the life of the child that is born from her. For example, one of my good friends has a sister that just had an unplanned pregnancy. We were all worried because she is a heavy drinker and smoker. I believe that she was able to cease drinking, but she still smoked about two and a half packs of cigarettes a day. Her baby was just born yesterday; one of the first questions I asked my friend was if the baby was healthy. I found out that the baby was taken away for his first six hours because he was born with low oxygen levels in his blood due to her heavy smoking. The effects on a baby during pregnancy are so vital to that baby; it should be given the right to life.
The third contention is the most important to distinguish when deciding if these three contentions can be consistent. The best way that I know how to explain this contention to give reasons why it can be consistent with the previous two is to compare this situation to that of self-defense. In self defense, a person has the right to defend their life from a person threatening that life. This right does not mean that the person must choose to take the life of the other; they may have a strong belief that killing is wrong and let the other person kill them. It is the same situation with pregnancy. When the baby inside is threatening the life of the mother, she should be given the opportunity, as with self defense, to save her own life. If she believes in the life of her child more, she should also be given the right to die in order to save her baby’s life. With the issue of self defense, our society believes that we do not have the right to kill another, but we may in self defense. With these contentions a mother does not have the right to an abortion because the embryo has the right to life, but if necessary to save her own life, she may have an abortion.
Issues in Abortion
Roe v. Wade
#3
Brittany Lake
When reading "Roe v. Wade" a lot of moral issues are brought to the attention of the reader. Back in distant years, it was legal to perform an abortion up until a certain amount of time. Then it changed to prohibiting abortion all together, unless the pregnancy endangered the mother's life. Today the law has changed back being legally able to have an abortion within the first tri-mester of pregnancy, or unless the pregnancy threatenes the mother's life. Constitutional rights are being broken on either side, those being the rights of the mother and the fetus. It is one's personal beliefs that incourage which side will be taken by that person. It's either pro-life or pro-choice. When believing that a life is formed at the moment of conception, one is going to take the side of pro-life. But when another person looks at it as if the pregnancy is an inconvinience to the life of the mother, such as financial difficulties or health reasons, then pro-choice will be favored.
When taking into consideration pro-life and pro-choice, I don't think it's possible to consistently believe that a) a woman has no right to an abortion, b) a human embryo or fetus has an inviolable right to life, and c) a woman may have an abortion if it is necessary to save her own life. When one is pro-life, then the option of the woman having an abortion if it's necessary to save her own life is not possible. When one is pro-choice, then the other two options are also not possible. Even if one is moderate on the issue and takes a little of both sides, it is still not possible to be consistent with these thoughts. "A woman has no right to terminate her pregnancy no matter what the situation and a human embryo has an inviolable right to life" (453) are definite statements and cancel out the third option because options A and B have no exceptions. The third, "A woman may have an abortion if it is necessary to save her own life" (453) is not definite and if one believes this then the other options cannot be adopted as a view.
#3
Brittany Lake
When reading "Roe v. Wade" a lot of moral issues are brought to the attention of the reader. Back in distant years, it was legal to perform an abortion up until a certain amount of time. Then it changed to prohibiting abortion all together, unless the pregnancy endangered the mother's life. Today the law has changed back being legally able to have an abortion within the first tri-mester of pregnancy, or unless the pregnancy threatenes the mother's life. Constitutional rights are being broken on either side, those being the rights of the mother and the fetus. It is one's personal beliefs that incourage which side will be taken by that person. It's either pro-life or pro-choice. When believing that a life is formed at the moment of conception, one is going to take the side of pro-life. But when another person looks at it as if the pregnancy is an inconvinience to the life of the mother, such as financial difficulties or health reasons, then pro-choice will be favored.
When taking into consideration pro-life and pro-choice, I don't think it's possible to consistently believe that a) a woman has no right to an abortion, b) a human embryo or fetus has an inviolable right to life, and c) a woman may have an abortion if it is necessary to save her own life. When one is pro-life, then the option of the woman having an abortion if it's necessary to save her own life is not possible. When one is pro-choice, then the other two options are also not possible. Even if one is moderate on the issue and takes a little of both sides, it is still not possible to be consistent with these thoughts. "A woman has no right to terminate her pregnancy no matter what the situation and a human embryo has an inviolable right to life" (453) are definite statements and cancel out the third option because options A and B have no exceptions. The third, "A woman may have an abortion if it is necessary to save her own life" (453) is not definite and if one believes this then the other options cannot be adopted as a view.
Thou Shalt Not Murder
Sara Tillman
Question #5
June 22, 2007
I agree with Cardozo that "when two or more are overtaken by a common disaster, there is no right on the part of one to save the lives of some by killing another. There is no rule of human jettison." I understand what the judge is stating in his charge to the jury that the sailors and the passengers can not be regarded as the same, but should the sailor be able to play the part of God and decide who gets to live and who is going to die. I believe that Holmes had the best intention during the disaster, but I don't think that he should have taken one life to save another.
This is a challenging case because we don't know what would have happened if no one person was sacrificed, but we also don't know if they would have all died due to the sinking boat. However, it is against the law to murder, and the Bible states that "thou shalt not murder". The Bible doesn't state thou may murder if it is a disaster-like situation. It is no ones place but God to decide who shall live and who shall die. Furthermore, the selection process of who shall live was human "man and wife were not torn asunder, and the women were all preserved", yet is it fair for an unmarried young man to die simply because he has not taken a wife yet.
The judge states that "he(Holmes) is bound to set a greater value on the life of others than on his own," and I agree with. If Holmes really cared about saving as many lives as possible he would have sacrificed his own life before other. When Holmes took his position as a sailor he knew that a life threatening situation could happen and a part duties is to maintain the safety of the passengers.
Whether or not Holmes had the best intentions for his passengers or not he still took the lives of others. He should have tried to save all of his passengers life, or given his life before others. Murder is a sin and it is against the law and Holmes should have to pay for his crimes.
Question #5
June 22, 2007
I agree with Cardozo that "when two or more are overtaken by a common disaster, there is no right on the part of one to save the lives of some by killing another. There is no rule of human jettison." I understand what the judge is stating in his charge to the jury that the sailors and the passengers can not be regarded as the same, but should the sailor be able to play the part of God and decide who gets to live and who is going to die. I believe that Holmes had the best intention during the disaster, but I don't think that he should have taken one life to save another.
This is a challenging case because we don't know what would have happened if no one person was sacrificed, but we also don't know if they would have all died due to the sinking boat. However, it is against the law to murder, and the Bible states that "thou shalt not murder". The Bible doesn't state thou may murder if it is a disaster-like situation. It is no ones place but God to decide who shall live and who shall die. Furthermore, the selection process of who shall live was human "man and wife were not torn asunder, and the women were all preserved", yet is it fair for an unmarried young man to die simply because he has not taken a wife yet.
The judge states that "he(Holmes) is bound to set a greater value on the life of others than on his own," and I agree with. If Holmes really cared about saving as many lives as possible he would have sacrificed his own life before other. When Holmes took his position as a sailor he knew that a life threatening situation could happen and a part duties is to maintain the safety of the passengers.
Whether or not Holmes had the best intentions for his passengers or not he still took the lives of others. He should have tried to save all of his passengers life, or given his life before others. Murder is a sin and it is against the law and Holmes should have to pay for his crimes.
The Ultimate Sacrifice
The Ultimate Sacrifice
This essay is a rebuttal concerning Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Benjamin Cardozo, on his comment on the Holmes case. Associate Justice Cardozo wrote in part: “When two or more are overtaken by a common disaster, there is no right on the part of one to save the lives of some by killing another.” In essence he is saying that all either survive together, or perish together, rather than to sacrifice some for the greater good of the majority. Cardozo’s quote relates to survivors in an over-crowded life boat on a perilous sea which would have capsized or been sunk had not some passengers been forcibly thrown into the ocean, legal debate questioned the methods used to determine who were thrown to certain death. But Associate Justice Cardozo makes no distinctions about when an unthinkable event might make this decision necessary, he simply states that there is no reason to ever sacrifice anyone, even if it means everyone will die.
I would be curious to hear his admonishment to the members of the Titanic. Survival boats were in woefully short supply. The captain of the Titanic filled the boats with women and children. Many men voluntarily stayed aboard, thinking it the gentlemanly thing to do, and others were ordered to stay aboard because of lack of room in the lifeboats. Should everyone have perished instead of the sacrifice that made life possible for thousands?
In a civilized country during peace time, the only justifiable reason for taking another life is self defense, when serious injury or death seems imminent. Indeed one is fortunate if one lives in such a country at such a time.
Our country has been involved in several wars. Isn’t the sacrifice of soldiers for the greater good of survival of the majority? Yet even in war there are rules of engagement and treatment of the enemy. What is at issue here is extraordinary events where laws of nature are in control and if any are to survive, some must perish.
Baldwin, the Circuit Court Judge, while charging the jury, gave several examples, rules of protocol if you will, as means of determining who could be sacrificed to save the majority. Preferably methods to be used in a “worst case scenario” were agreed upon before hand, and in the case the worst would happen. Precedence from prior events formed a common law that would be applicable under certain circumstances. Survival of our species prevails. If four people have been stranded on the ocean for weeks, and all are starving, but an elderly or injured person is dying, is it not more practical to sacrifice that person to save the other three? This isn’t a theoretical question as it has happened. As barbaric as the situation seems, throughout history similar events have occurred and for most situations there are basic premises to be followed to assure that there are survivors. Life is too precious to be wasted. Sacrifice is always going to be necessary. Cataclysmic events may entail drastic measures to assure survival of the majority is repugnant. To have everyone die when many or most could have survived is a travesty.
This essay is a rebuttal concerning Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Benjamin Cardozo, on his comment on the Holmes case. Associate Justice Cardozo wrote in part: “When two or more are overtaken by a common disaster, there is no right on the part of one to save the lives of some by killing another.” In essence he is saying that all either survive together, or perish together, rather than to sacrifice some for the greater good of the majority. Cardozo’s quote relates to survivors in an over-crowded life boat on a perilous sea which would have capsized or been sunk had not some passengers been forcibly thrown into the ocean, legal debate questioned the methods used to determine who were thrown to certain death. But Associate Justice Cardozo makes no distinctions about when an unthinkable event might make this decision necessary, he simply states that there is no reason to ever sacrifice anyone, even if it means everyone will die.
I would be curious to hear his admonishment to the members of the Titanic. Survival boats were in woefully short supply. The captain of the Titanic filled the boats with women and children. Many men voluntarily stayed aboard, thinking it the gentlemanly thing to do, and others were ordered to stay aboard because of lack of room in the lifeboats. Should everyone have perished instead of the sacrifice that made life possible for thousands?
In a civilized country during peace time, the only justifiable reason for taking another life is self defense, when serious injury or death seems imminent. Indeed one is fortunate if one lives in such a country at such a time.
Our country has been involved in several wars. Isn’t the sacrifice of soldiers for the greater good of survival of the majority? Yet even in war there are rules of engagement and treatment of the enemy. What is at issue here is extraordinary events where laws of nature are in control and if any are to survive, some must perish.
Baldwin, the Circuit Court Judge, while charging the jury, gave several examples, rules of protocol if you will, as means of determining who could be sacrificed to save the majority. Preferably methods to be used in a “worst case scenario” were agreed upon before hand, and in the case the worst would happen. Precedence from prior events formed a common law that would be applicable under certain circumstances. Survival of our species prevails. If four people have been stranded on the ocean for weeks, and all are starving, but an elderly or injured person is dying, is it not more practical to sacrifice that person to save the other three? This isn’t a theoretical question as it has happened. As barbaric as the situation seems, throughout history similar events have occurred and for most situations there are basic premises to be followed to assure that there are survivors. Life is too precious to be wasted. Sacrifice is always going to be necessary. Cataclysmic events may entail drastic measures to assure survival of the majority is repugnant. To have everyone die when many or most could have survived is a travesty.
Gay Marriages
Kelsey Webb
June 22, 2007
Each day, “hot button issues” find a place in the news, in political meetings, in research facilities, and in our every day lives. Whether they concern the environment or test some standard already set by a society, these issues are paid attention to. Gay marriage has found its place on the table of issues. Opponents say that marriage is between a man and a woman period. Supporters say that it should not matter. Despite arguments from either side, our world is becoming less and less of a world filled with love. So why not let two people that love each other become legally married, regardless of sex?
Thomas B. Stoddard agrees that gay marriages should be legal. Besides the obvious argument that it shouldn’t matter if two people of the same sex get married as long as they love each other, Stoddard discusses the benefits of marriage that gays would miss out on. “Marriage is not just a symbolic state. It can be the key to survival, emotional and financial. Marriage triggers a universe of rights, privileges, and presumptions” (Stoddard 551). Married couples share estate rights, insurance, pension programs, and tax advantages. These are benefits that should not be denied on the basis of sexuality. Stoddard also mentions a story of a lesbian couple that suffered from marital discrimination. Thompson and Kowalski fit the definition of a married couple but without the legal status. Thompson tried to care for Kowalski after a car accident but was denied guardianship and Kowalski was moved to a nursing home 300 miles away from Thompson. This lack of legal marriage license caused the couple anguish that no married couple would ever have to go through with a case like this one.
Sadly, there are two sides to every story. Lisa Schiffren takes the opposing view in an essay titled, “Gay Marriage, an Oxymoron.” Schiffren makes argument after argument opposing homosexual matrimony but each point has a loophole. She references “our culture’s understanding of the institution [of marriage]” (Schiffren 554). However she forgets to note that “our culture’s understanding” changes, and it does quite frequently. There was a time when blacks were not allowed to marry whites. Thankfully, this ‘understanding’ changed. Now we see that an idea such as discriminating against racial marriage is ridiculous. Schiffren states that the purpose of marriage is to procreate but if this was the case, infertile couples would not be allowed to marry. Women over the age of 35 would not be allowed to marry, due to the fact that most birth defects increase if the mother is over 35. Homosexuals are just as qualified to “raise healthy children” and “nurture children” as heterosexuals. Schiffren also talks about how the “tie that really binds for life is shared responsibility for the children...” and “What will keep gay marriages together when individuals tire of each other?” (Schiffren 554). However, this is not a valid argument. What keeps heterosexual marriages together when individuals tire of each other? They do share responsibility for the children but yet still find ways to get divorced.
Basically, it comes down to the fact that discrimination is illegal. Society is beginning to realize that homosexuals must be not necessarily accepted but tolerated. You cannot physically harm or abuse gays and get away with it. Therefore, you should not be able to determine the destiny of a gay couple. All humans have rights and the government should not deprive homosexual humans of their marital rights.
June 22, 2007
Each day, “hot button issues” find a place in the news, in political meetings, in research facilities, and in our every day lives. Whether they concern the environment or test some standard already set by a society, these issues are paid attention to. Gay marriage has found its place on the table of issues. Opponents say that marriage is between a man and a woman period. Supporters say that it should not matter. Despite arguments from either side, our world is becoming less and less of a world filled with love. So why not let two people that love each other become legally married, regardless of sex?
Thomas B. Stoddard agrees that gay marriages should be legal. Besides the obvious argument that it shouldn’t matter if two people of the same sex get married as long as they love each other, Stoddard discusses the benefits of marriage that gays would miss out on. “Marriage is not just a symbolic state. It can be the key to survival, emotional and financial. Marriage triggers a universe of rights, privileges, and presumptions” (Stoddard 551). Married couples share estate rights, insurance, pension programs, and tax advantages. These are benefits that should not be denied on the basis of sexuality. Stoddard also mentions a story of a lesbian couple that suffered from marital discrimination. Thompson and Kowalski fit the definition of a married couple but without the legal status. Thompson tried to care for Kowalski after a car accident but was denied guardianship and Kowalski was moved to a nursing home 300 miles away from Thompson. This lack of legal marriage license caused the couple anguish that no married couple would ever have to go through with a case like this one.
Sadly, there are two sides to every story. Lisa Schiffren takes the opposing view in an essay titled, “Gay Marriage, an Oxymoron.” Schiffren makes argument after argument opposing homosexual matrimony but each point has a loophole. She references “our culture’s understanding of the institution [of marriage]” (Schiffren 554). However she forgets to note that “our culture’s understanding” changes, and it does quite frequently. There was a time when blacks were not allowed to marry whites. Thankfully, this ‘understanding’ changed. Now we see that an idea such as discriminating against racial marriage is ridiculous. Schiffren states that the purpose of marriage is to procreate but if this was the case, infertile couples would not be allowed to marry. Women over the age of 35 would not be allowed to marry, due to the fact that most birth defects increase if the mother is over 35. Homosexuals are just as qualified to “raise healthy children” and “nurture children” as heterosexuals. Schiffren also talks about how the “tie that really binds for life is shared responsibility for the children...” and “What will keep gay marriages together when individuals tire of each other?” (Schiffren 554). However, this is not a valid argument. What keeps heterosexual marriages together when individuals tire of each other? They do share responsibility for the children but yet still find ways to get divorced.
Basically, it comes down to the fact that discrimination is illegal. Society is beginning to realize that homosexuals must be not necessarily accepted but tolerated. You cannot physically harm or abuse gays and get away with it. Therefore, you should not be able to determine the destiny of a gay couple. All humans have rights and the government should not deprive homosexual humans of their marital rights.
The Question of Life
In “United States v. Holmes” many are asked to question the value of a human life and at what right and time does someone have the power to decide who shall live and who shall die. U.S. Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Benjamin Cardozo, makes a compelling statement about the sanctity of life when pointing out that no one should have the power to play God. Instead, he makes the valid point that nature is nature for a reason and should be left to take its course.
Letting one so choose to take the value of one’s life and to play God is not a rule that one would want to be allowed within society at any point in time for any reason. I firmly believe that everything happens for a reason and therefore agree with Cardozo in his statements about the Holmes case. If life is meant to be taken it will go. No human being should have the right to decide who shall die and when and where he or she shall pass. In seeking to sanctify the value of life one must keep in mind that every human life has value and therefore a sole or group of human beings should not determine one’s future.
In the end, the true question within the Holmes case came down to sacrificing the lives of all or sacrificing only a few. In my conclusion, I firmly believe that as sailors they signed up to do just that. They decided to take on life and risk of a seaman, knowing full the risks that were being involved. Therefore, their absence of the a proper number of boats for the amount of lives on board is no one else’s but their own fault. In the end we all have what comes to us, but I firmly believe that no life shall be taken before their time is to be up.
Letting one so choose to take the value of one’s life and to play God is not a rule that one would want to be allowed within society at any point in time for any reason. I firmly believe that everything happens for a reason and therefore agree with Cardozo in his statements about the Holmes case. If life is meant to be taken it will go. No human being should have the right to decide who shall die and when and where he or she shall pass. In seeking to sanctify the value of life one must keep in mind that every human life has value and therefore a sole or group of human beings should not determine one’s future.
In the end, the true question within the Holmes case came down to sacrificing the lives of all or sacrificing only a few. In my conclusion, I firmly believe that as sailors they signed up to do just that. They decided to take on life and risk of a seaman, knowing full the risks that were being involved. Therefore, their absence of the a proper number of boats for the amount of lives on board is no one else’s but their own fault. In the end we all have what comes to us, but I firmly believe that no life shall be taken before their time is to be up.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Abortion
The abortion debate can be viewed from two sides, the woman's or the embryo's. During the last election season I worked at a Jewish Community Center in an Orthodox neighborhood and asked my boss what the Jewish faith had to say on the abortion debate. I was told the Orthodox people believe that the child's life begins totally at the moment the woman knows she is pregnant. Therefore, it is murder to abort the child. However, if the child is a danger to the woman then the child is committing murder by killing the woman who is a wife, mother, daughter and a member of the community and the child should then be aborted to save the woman's life. My boss said that she supported the pro-choice legislations to ensure the safety of the women who needed the abortion. I found this view to be both morally and legally grounded. A far cry from all the frenzied shouting in the abortion "debates".
The question asks if a person can, "consistently believe that (a) a woman has no right to an abortion, (b) a human embryo or fetus has an inviolable right to life, and (c) a woman may have an abortion if it is necessary to save her own life" (453). The first statement is absolute and invalidates the third. If you say that a woman has no right to an abortion then you take away her right to life-she has no option in case of a medically necessary abortion. The second statement also invalidated the third statement. No person in
Abortion: Rights Question #3
Abortion is a huge issue in our country. Many people look at in different ways, so it is not just a two-sided argument. It is easy for a person to say they think abortion should be legal or illegal. Religion impacts however a person may choose largely because it is wrong to end a human life. I know I use religion as a basis of how I think about abortion. Firstly, well let me start by saying I am Catholic. In our church abortion is against our religion; any form of birth control is a moral sin. Also, I want to say that I believe that abortion should not be used as a birth control method. This all shows religion may play a huge role in how someone views abortion.
To look at (a) a woman has no right to an abortion, (b) a human embryo or fetus has an inviolable right to life, and (c) a woman may have an abortion if it is necessary to save her own life, first we must start by looking at these statements individually. A says a woman cannot have an abortion, it is not right. B says an unborn child has a right to life no matter what stage it is in. C says abortion is okay to perform if the woman will not survive giving birth or finishing a pregnancy. These statements are inconsistant largely because they are all different views.
If a woman has no right to have an abortion, then it would be impossible to perform an abortion to save the woman's life. A and C cannot work together in any way; if A is law, then C will not work. B and C also cannot work harmoniously because if a woman would have an abortion to save her life, she is not acknowledging the right of her unborn child. The only two that can work together in harmony are A and B. If a woman does not have the right to have an abortion, then the rights of the fetus are acknowledged.
How I look at these three statements is from the religious standpoint. Granted these statements are inconsistant, I see all statements involving a Christian viewpoint. A says a woman should not have an abortion and that is saying it is wrong to kill. B is saying the unborn child has a right to life and that is going back to what A proves: it is wrong to kill. Then, obviously C is also saving a life, but yet it is still killing one. These statements I have just made make the statements sound consistant, but they are not consistant. The reason for inconsistancy is none of them can really work in harmony, except for A and B. All three cannot work together at once, so I see inconsistancy.
To look at (a) a woman has no right to an abortion, (b) a human embryo or fetus has an inviolable right to life, and (c) a woman may have an abortion if it is necessary to save her own life, first we must start by looking at these statements individually. A says a woman cannot have an abortion, it is not right. B says an unborn child has a right to life no matter what stage it is in. C says abortion is okay to perform if the woman will not survive giving birth or finishing a pregnancy. These statements are inconsistant largely because they are all different views.
If a woman has no right to have an abortion, then it would be impossible to perform an abortion to save the woman's life. A and C cannot work together in any way; if A is law, then C will not work. B and C also cannot work harmoniously because if a woman would have an abortion to save her life, she is not acknowledging the right of her unborn child. The only two that can work together in harmony are A and B. If a woman does not have the right to have an abortion, then the rights of the fetus are acknowledged.
How I look at these three statements is from the religious standpoint. Granted these statements are inconsistant, I see all statements involving a Christian viewpoint. A says a woman should not have an abortion and that is saying it is wrong to kill. B is saying the unborn child has a right to life and that is going back to what A proves: it is wrong to kill. Then, obviously C is also saving a life, but yet it is still killing one. These statements I have just made make the statements sound consistant, but they are not consistant. The reason for inconsistancy is none of them can really work in harmony, except for A and B. All three cannot work together at once, so I see inconsistancy.
Fate Should Have Decided
Katie Rupp
# 5
6/21/2007
I do not believe that there is any situation where it would be alright to sacrifice somebody else’s life for my own. Human beings are all equal, no matter race or religion. In cultures like ours we place prestige with rank. The higher ranked you are, the more important you must be. In a situation where people’s lives are at stake, nobody has the right to order you to kill yourself.
I completely agree with Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, Benjamin Cardozo. He said “If none are ready to sacrifice themselves,” their survival must be up to fate. Ordering the fourteen male and two female passengers to jump over board is, “unlawful homicide.” Holmes’s defense argues that he was trying to save the lives of the other passengers. If that is true I think he should have volunteered his life and saved one of the sixteen who were forced to die. The fact that he got six months in jail and a twenty dollar fine is ridiculous. I think he should have gotten the death penalty. I could not even imagine how scary it would have been to have jump into the water knowing that you are going to die.
# 5
6/21/2007
I do not believe that there is any situation where it would be alright to sacrifice somebody else’s life for my own. Human beings are all equal, no matter race or religion. In cultures like ours we place prestige with rank. The higher ranked you are, the more important you must be. In a situation where people’s lives are at stake, nobody has the right to order you to kill yourself.
I completely agree with Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, Benjamin Cardozo. He said “If none are ready to sacrifice themselves,” their survival must be up to fate. Ordering the fourteen male and two female passengers to jump over board is, “unlawful homicide.” Holmes’s defense argues that he was trying to save the lives of the other passengers. If that is true I think he should have volunteered his life and saved one of the sixteen who were forced to die. The fact that he got six months in jail and a twenty dollar fine is ridiculous. I think he should have gotten the death penalty. I could not even imagine how scary it would have been to have jump into the water knowing that you are going to die.
Abortion
Nicole Hunter
Week 6 Blog
Here the question is, can a person consistently believe the three following statements?
Statement (A) says that a woman has no right to an abortion. By using these words the statement is essentially implying that, no matter what, under any circumstances, a woman is not allowed the right to an abortion.
Statement (B) says that a human embryo has an inviolable right to life. What this says is consistent with statement (A) in that the embryo has every right to live, and their right to life must not be violated by means of abortion. Since statement (A) is outlawing abortion, it concurs with statement (B), that this right to life is inviolable.
Statement (C) says that a woman may have an abortion if it is necessary to save her own life. It is immediately obvious that this statement conflicts both statements (A) and (B). When comparing statement (A) and (C) it is saying that a woman has no right to an abortion, but then immediately flips the tables and says, unless her own life is in danger. This automatically falsifies statement (A) in its entirety. When comparing statements (B) and (C) another inconsistency occurs. Here it is saying human embryos have an inviolable right to life, unless the mother's life is in danger, then it is okay to violate the child's life. Statement (B) has now become almost useless because its argument is taken over by either statement (A) or (C).
I think these three statements, while inconsistent in nature, are consistent in the minds of many pro-life advocates. There is definitely a more clear cut way to word the three statements and combine them into one. I am a strong believer in pro-choice for women, because, just as these pro-life statements show, there are far too many inconsistencies and unknown circumstances that lie within each individual case. There are endless amounts of what ifs, too many to be covered in a law banning all cases, no matter what the what ifs are. These statements only prove that further by contradicting themselves.
Week 6 Blog
Here the question is, can a person consistently believe the three following statements?
Statement (A) says that a woman has no right to an abortion. By using these words the statement is essentially implying that, no matter what, under any circumstances, a woman is not allowed the right to an abortion.
Statement (B) says that a human embryo has an inviolable right to life. What this says is consistent with statement (A) in that the embryo has every right to live, and their right to life must not be violated by means of abortion. Since statement (A) is outlawing abortion, it concurs with statement (B), that this right to life is inviolable.
Statement (C) says that a woman may have an abortion if it is necessary to save her own life. It is immediately obvious that this statement conflicts both statements (A) and (B). When comparing statement (A) and (C) it is saying that a woman has no right to an abortion, but then immediately flips the tables and says, unless her own life is in danger. This automatically falsifies statement (A) in its entirety. When comparing statements (B) and (C) another inconsistency occurs. Here it is saying human embryos have an inviolable right to life, unless the mother's life is in danger, then it is okay to violate the child's life. Statement (B) has now become almost useless because its argument is taken over by either statement (A) or (C).
I think these three statements, while inconsistent in nature, are consistent in the minds of many pro-life advocates. There is definitely a more clear cut way to word the three statements and combine them into one. I am a strong believer in pro-choice for women, because, just as these pro-life statements show, there are far too many inconsistencies and unknown circumstances that lie within each individual case. There are endless amounts of what ifs, too many to be covered in a law banning all cases, no matter what the what ifs are. These statements only prove that further by contradicting themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)