Life is tricky. Human beings balance endless obligations, choices and decisions daily that fluctuate from simple to complex and are predicated by individual worldviews. Navigating everyday situations is oftentimes automatic and requires little to no emotional involvement. Inevitably though, a difficult situation involving two conflicting ethical principles will arise, creating an internal divide. These emotionally charged, morally laden quandaries, challenge our convictions of the rightness or wrongness of a decision and the goodness or badness of its consequences. The instinctive black and white stances taken when merely discussing broad moral issues such as abortion, become disorganized and conflicted when private and personal ethical components are introduced. These either/or ethical scenarios do not simply offer obvious choices between right and wrong, but rather pit right versus good, or bad versus even worse within us, pushing our boundaries of reason and testing the congruity of our worldview commitments.
In our society, there are many ethical dilemmas that we are faced with that are virtually impossible to solve. One of the most difficult and controversial issues that we are faced with is abortion. There are many strong arguments both for and against the right to have an abortion which are so complicated that it becomes impossible to resolve. The complexity of this issue lies in the different aspects of the argument. The essence of a person, rights, and who is entitled to these rights, are a few of the many aspects which are very difficult to define. There are also issues of what circumstances would justify abortion. Because the issue of abortion is virtually impossible to solve, all one can hope
Anyone who has contemplated something very life changing, like a death in the family, then experienced it, understands how different it is to actually be faced with the dilemma. When theorizing, it is hard to maintain the intimate connection needed to truly react to a moral dilemma. My defense of this situation comes from a lack of a suitable alternative. True moral dilemmas are not only rare, but extremely hard to document. When faced with a situation that demands not only one's complete attention, but emotional vigor, it is really hard to find time to document or discuss feelings (let alone the motivation to do so!). For example, looking at the Heinz dilemma, it would be very hard to explain why one was chasing a man around while he tried to find a cure for his dying wife.
From the time Anna was born, whenever Kate fell ill and needed a donor, Kate and Anna’s parents did not hesitate to use Anna’s body without asking her. Parents should not harm one child to save another. Anna decides to go to a lawyer and sue her parents for the rights of her own body. The lawyer makes an ethical decision to be a
An ethical dilemma is a debate between two moral principles, where two sides can dispute about what is wrong or what is right. However, there is no real answer to an ethical dilemma. Is it a “simple” matter of what one believes in? The best answer would be, in ethics, it is not always simple. Ethics have a propensity to engage in moral reasoning, performing critical examination of different beliefs, in order to determine whether they should be accepted or rejected. Abortion is considered an ethical dilemma. It is examined by two different groups, which have two different perspectives; Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice.
She then reconstructs the initial argument to state that it is morally impermissible to abort a fetus if it has the right to life and has the right to the mother's body. The fetus has the right to life but only has the right to a mother's body if the mother voluntarily gives that right to the fetus. Therefore it is only in the case of voluntary pregnancy is abortion impermissible.
The author argues that abortion can be done to save a mother’s life. For example, if a mother has a health problem that will not allow her to carry the pregnancy then abortion should be done in order to save her life (Feinberg and Shafer-Landau 28, 29). Furthermore, she argues that even though abortion is presumed as killing a child, the refusal to perform an abortion to an ill mother similarly results in the death of the mother. So it is unfair to the mother as both of them have equal rights to life and no one is inferior to the other (Feinberg and Shafer-Landau 642). In addition, the author states that the extreme view that abortion is killing/murdering an unborn child is false (Feinberg and Shafer-Landau 30). In a like manner, if a pregnancy poses a death risk to a mother, she has the right to defend herself even if in doing so involves killing the unborn child.
What this choice is, is the choice to have a legal abortion. Everyday people fight to maintain legal abortion. One reason they fight is to protect women’s rights. Women’s rights are rights that promote a position of legal and social equality of women with men. Having a legal abortion is precisely promoting that. It is allowing women the right to being in charge of their own body just like men have the right to be in charge of theirs. While some may see this as a selfish and even barbaric choice, this choice is essential to women’s lives. It is not a matter of forcing an abortion onto women or saying that the choice of having an abortion is not a big deal because it is a colossally complex and painstaking matter. It is a matter of permitting the option to be there if necessary. It is allowing women to make the decision for themselves, to have a say in what they do with their body. For, in the end, it is their body, and it is their
Pro-life versus Pro-choice stands as the most prominent bioethical issue in American Society today. This ongoing argument of whether an woman has the right to her body and potential child has been previously rigously debated for decades. The arguemental topic of pro life versus pro choice often dances along the topic that the government has been attempting to become callous in women’s rights as a total. I stand with women on their choice of their body, and fully believe that the government dictating the right of a female to their body is not only both morally and ethically wrong, yet also extremely contradictory.
The most obvious conclusion is that as the owner of the house, the mother has the right to do with her body as she wishes. In this example, this can mean that no woman should ever have to sacrifice her own body for the sake of another individual. As the owner of her body, the mother should be the one who decides what is to be done with the fetus inside her body. However, I must point out that there is a very fine line in regards to this analogy and it is important to put limitations on where a woman can leverage this idea. In doing so, there is a certain degree of ambiguity in this example that makes the situation slightly
The topic on abortion involves my response to a woman who has been struggling between aborting and keeping her baby. Susan, a career driven woman has been waiting for many years to have a baby. Through blood tests, she has been notified that her baby unfortunately has Down syndrome. Her doctors and trusted friend Richard suggested that she aborts the baby. They feel as though if Susan brings human life into the world, she will cause more suffering for the baby and herself. Therefore, she is torn between the two difficult decisions. Susan is aware that if she goes through with the pregnancy, her child will have lifelong suffering and it would be immoral for her to bring her child into the world. However, she really wants to have a baby. Although her baby would suffer with Down syndrome, she should make the ethical decision of keeping the baby. Susan ignores
The American Library Association, ALA, is an organization that, among other things, compiles a list every year of the most frequently challenged books. “The American Library Association actively defends the right of library users to read, seek information, and speak freely as guaranteed by the First Amendment.” (ALA) Many times, the books on this list are challenged by parents with the want to protect their children from things they don’t believe to be appropriate. “Only parents have the right and responsibility to restrict the access of their children” (ALA) Even with these good intentions, by challenging a book, they are trying to challenge the authors’ thoughts and words, their First Amendment rights. These books usually contain
Often times in a complex situation individuals are involved in conflicting decisions to progress to a solution. The ethical dilemma may conflict with acceptable morals or behaviors but to resolve the paradox a decision has to be made. D.B.’s parents are faced with an ethical dilemma when they discover their son has an incurable disease. They could allow the illness to take its course or seek a form of treatment to slow its progression.
The choice to have a child is life changing. Parents are given nine months to prepare for their lives to change completely. All of a sudden they are not the only person they are responsible for. Reitha and Ken Lakeberg’s circumstance was a bit more complex than the usual change in responsibilities. Instead of the one child to make decisions for, there were two, and they happened to be conjoined. Instead of having to consent for one baby they had two. This is the first ethical issue in this story. Autonomy is the right to make decisions for yourself, although with children the informed consent has to come from their parents. Yes it makes sense that children do not always fully understand and need guidance from parents. But when it is a life or death situation and there is no way to tell what they want circumstances become complicated. What gives parents or doctors the right to decide which twin should try to be saved and which twin should be sacrificed. “Mercifully, Reitha and Ken had been spared a Sophie’s Choice of selecting which of their offspring would die. Doctors made the decision strictly on medical grounds—which twin had the
Imagine you are a young woman who is just realizing that she is pregnant. You don’t want to carry a baby that you know you can’t care for, and because you come from a very religious family, you are unable to get an abortion. The topic of abortion is often split into two sides, pro-choice and pro-life. Although some people are against abortion because they believe that all life is important, people should not be pressured into not getting one because it is the mother’s own choice, getting one is already emotional for the mother, and they might not be able to care for the baby after it is born.