Natural Law And The Preservation Of Human Life

The origins of the word ‘Euthanasia’ are Greek and translate to ‘easy death’. The definition of Euthanasia or 'dignified suicide' is the act of which one gets injected with a substance that will peacefully kill them. It's not euthanasia to give a drug in order to eliminate immediate pain, even though the drug causes the patient to die sooner. This is because the doctor wanted to relieve the pain, not to kill the patient. This is known as the Doctrine of Double effect.

Natural law is one of the three pillars of universalism that shows how law and morality can be profoundly connected. In the textbook it stated that “Natural law refers to a body of universal laws, which is applicable to all human beings and regulates our interactions” (Trembly 86). It had all begun with a man in the 13th century named Thomas Aquinas who believed that there was difference between human and divine law. Natural law to him was that Gods law was made known to man through his own reason and that the teachings of the Christian life of God made it possible for there be an natural and universal legal framework. He also acknowledged that natural law was reflected by the moral and ethical principles contained in the commandments that came from God which was given onto the church. This law is applicable to every individual. The concept of morality under the natural law theory is not subjective which means the definition of what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’ is the same for everyone no matter where they come from.

The debate about the legality of abortion involves debating the legal status of the fetus. If the fetus is a person, anti-choice activists argue, then abortion is murder and should be illegal. Even if the fetus is a person, though, abortion may have justified as necessary to women’s body self-govern but that wouldn’t mean that abortion is automatically ethical. Perhaps the state can’t force women to carry pregnancies to term, but it could argue that it is the most ethical choice.

Abortion is a decision every person should decide for themselves. The major arguments against abortion are how a fetus is a person; a fetus has rights; and it is morally impermissible to take a life. Many consider abortion to be equivalent to murder. However, a fetus is not a person. There are important traits one most hold to be a person, 1) self-awareness, one must be able to make decisions regarding themselves 2) being able to converse with others and hold a relationship 3) consciousness, one must be able to make rational decisions and have thought (Warren). On important aspect of being person is the ability to be aware of its surroundings and decision making. Being a pregnant is not a situation everyone gets to experience and the

Many would argue that the mother could be a rape victim, or that it was just a mistake that she became pregnant, so it is unfair that she should be obligated to have the child. Of course, I sympathize with the rape victim and believe what happen to her is unfair and cruel, but I do not believe that killing the baby would be the solution. From the article in our reading by Judith Jarvis Thomson, A Defense of Abortion, she says: “Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.” (Judith Jarvis Thomson, A Defense of Abortion). It’s as if the reason for the author saying that the abortion is not to be performed is due to the fact that the baby’s life is important or sacred. What right do we have to take an innocent, sacred life with no other gain then to prevent a “possible” harm to the mother or others, which differs from the previous paragraph’s examples to the extent that it was to absolutely prevent harm or

“Abortion is the spontaneous or artificially induced expulsion of an embryo or fetus” (Abortion, 2002). An artificially induced abortion is the type referred to in the legal context. Abortions happen in different situations. The question comes when is it the right or wrong choice. The root question becomes the moment a fetus becomes a person and entitled to rights. The fetus could be a person at conception, during the pregnancy, or at birth. The deciding moment differs from the Pro-life group and Pro-choice group. After critically analyzing four different arguments about the pros and cons of abortion, one will be able to understand the ethical, moral, and

I agree completely that the fetus, or the human embryo, is in fact a living being. Moreover, human embryo is the “same” as human beings except, the difference between these two is that the embryo is not a full human person because the fetus is not fully developed yet. Every new life, whether it be animal or human, begins at conception. With this being said, no matter what the circumstances of conception, no matter how far along in the pregnancy, abortion, in my opinion, always ends the life of an individual human being.

Based on the view that the fetus is already a small baby, some extreme anti-abortionists would maintain that abortion is impermissible even to save the mothers life. The rationale behind this view would be that the child is innocent, and killing the child would be active, on the other hand, letting the mother die would be passive. This introduces two new concepts, the first being the mother’s rights in competition to those of the fetus and the second being the question of innocence and how we would define this (Langley).

Previous argument on sacrifices made by parent would also fulfill the argument here. However, I argue that the fetus would bring great pain to its’ family or to itself for the rest of its lifetime in most cases would refer to some form of support from the family or someone to gain the very quality of life to the fetus. Such case is similar to the argument Thomson made about the violinist, you share your kidney to maintain the life of a famous violinist is solely base on your kindness not because you own the violinist. (331c1) The fetus would require either emotional or physical support from the family or someone to maintain its quality of life, it is based on the kindness and responsibility that carries not because the family or someone owe the fetus.

The debate over abortion comes down to one essential issue — the moral status of the unborn

Abortion is the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy that is often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. As life begins at conception, unborn babies are human beings and thus have the right to life. The federal Unborn Victim Of Violence Act that was made to protect unborn babies from murder states that anybody intentionally killing an unborn baby should be punished for killing a human being. Abortion is a murder because it is taking away someone’s life. Even though the baby isn’t born yet, the fetus in the mother’s womb still feels pain while being aborted. No person, not even a mother, has the right to hurt someone. To keep a child, who can’t even speak, from growing and from living is a murder.

Abortion is always argued with different cases and play a main role in medical ethics (blackwell.,p291).It is evidently reasonable for some to argue that in moral situation, abortion is a murder and it should be illegal, while others may claim that abortion is woman’s right when concerning on autonomy ( The abortion debate in Australia). Opponents of making abortion legal claim that abortion is a kind of murder on extend of moral situation. It is always regarded as a sin to kill a person who is no aggressor in most moral communities (new ethics 1). Fetus is a biologically human as it is not just a part of the mothers, such as a lung or a kidney. On the contrary, it is obvious that fetus is human due to he or she has genetic code of human and human parents as well (abortion myth p5). Moreover, it has potentiality to be a person with primary moral worth (text book p210-211). As Gillion (new ethics) pointed out, every person has his right to life, especially he is not an aggressor. This point is also been pointed by (Rebecca and john,Blackwell p204), “embryos has a right to life” .The fetus is innocent and

“Is abortion moral or immoral?” We yet have not acquired an answer to this question. Infer by that, we defend about the nature and the moral status of the fetus. In the other word, should we or should we not? Don Marquis as well as Bonnie Steinbock embraces with the argument of their own, which point out the morality of abortion.

Natural law can be defined broadly as a philosophical belief that the human conception of justice or moral right is common to all humans and derived from nature. However it’s definition has been highly debated across history and therefore different definitions must be used as to not misinterpret the ideas and principles of different strains of thought within natural law (Boucher, 2009, P.19). It is also very important to distinguish how rights are understood in natural law, which is another contested definition. Rights in terms of natural law are generally emphasise doing what is ‘right’ as prescribed by law. This focuses on duties and obligations to the common good, rather than individual universal rights garnered from nature. (MacKinnon in Boucher, 2009, P.11). Rights in natural law are formed on the basis of obligation to obey God’s law, as mere reason of itself cannot create obligation (Boucher, 2009, P.12). The differing perceptions of natural law explored here will focus on Sophocles, Aristotle, Stoics, Cicero, Augustine and Aquinas. There will also be brief reference to the overlaps between natural law and natural rights traditions, to show that obligations do not always take priority over rights. Primarily across the natural law tradition, obligations take priority over rights however this becomes less certain with the overlaps between natural law and natural rights, which need to be addressed. For example Mary Wollstonecraft who stressed the importance of virtue; a

To what extent has the implementation of Article 6(1) overridden the common law doctrine of Natural Justice?