Science Vs. Political Philosophy

They continue by stating that abortion is simply a process that terminates pregnancy, not a life. This is an obvious misconception since the term embryo refers to humans at particular states of development. They are not blobs in a state of development, but rather humans growing to be ready for life. This simple blob or embryo that people believe is okay to obliterate is actually already a complex form of a human. Even before the trimester stage the baby will have all its body parts needed for the rest of his or her life. Although countless scientific and medical textbooks agree that human life begins at conception, people are still doubtful whether or not our science is correct. But if we are truly uncertain when life starts, it still does not give us the right to destroy a possible life. Why must we doubt thousands of intelligent scientists who agree that life begins at conception because of religious beliefs? Can you truly say it is okay to kill a life because people’s religious beliefs? No matter how much better it sounds defining abortion as terminating pregnancy, in the end a heartbeat is stopped, and a life is not able to continue.

When the beginning of life actually occurs is clearly not a topic to be taken lightly in today’s modern world. Majority of the population’s answers to this question are based on each individuals opinion and is supported by what they believe. In general, there are two sides of the argument. One is that life begins at the time of conception. The other belief is that life doesn’t begin until the drawing of the first breath. The true dilemma here is not the accurate pinpointing of life’s beginning, but the questions that accompany this topic and each individuals desire to do the right thing, the moral thing. While one point of view allows for abortion the other does not. The issue raises many questions of morality. Is abortion moral? When does it become murder? When is it permissible? (Life of the mother at stake / A product of rape). Should it be the mother’s choice? Many arguments for both sides pull from scripture and scientific articulations.

Abortion rights (or lack thereof) are a contentious issue to discuss, not just in this country but around the world. I am a pro-choice person because I feel that women should have the right to decide what to do with their bodies; equal rights, just like men are able to decide what to do with their own bodies. I have always come from a scientific background both in terms of overall thinking/rationale and in education. To me, the pro-life argument that life begins at conception makes no sense to me. A fertilized egg/fetus is not alive, just like a bacterium is not life.

Abortion is further viewed as a malicious act even when science becomes involved. Supporters of abortion attempt to justify their ideas by using the nature of preborn life. Pro-choice activists try to claim that we don’t know when life begins, when in reality, embryology textbooks and even other pro-choice advocates admit that human life begins when the egg and sperm unite. The promoters of abortion then go on to try and say that even though biological life begins at conception, we don’t know when personhood begins. This claim of personal identity is debunked when it is pointed out that the extremity at which rights of personhood should be granted is not something we know or don’t know, but it is something we decide. We as humans are the deciding factor in which we want to believe something should have rights. A human is created with a unique genetic identification that remains unchanged throughout his or her entire life once the egg becomes fertilized by the sperm. The being that is created by fertilization is now it’s own person and that new individual has a foundational right to life, which must be protected by the government, making abortion

When implementing this model within the topic of abortion the first and, for some, the uppermost principle of the value of life creates possibly one of the most relevant debates surrounding this issue. The organisation Pro-Life state that absolute respect for human life is the keystone of justice and the right to life is the most important right from which all others flow. The movement argues that even non-viable, undeveloped human life, is sacred and must be protected. Pro-Life members are diverse in economic status, race, religion, and education. They are unified by the concept that all humans, especially the innocent unborn, have an inherent right to life.  One of the main reasons against abortion given by Pro-Life advocates is that life begins at conception and that, by terminating the pregnancy, causes the foetus to die. They point out that during the first 8 weeks of pregnancy, when most abortions take place, a baby develops a heartbeat and elementary brain activity. It is believed that, by terminating a pregnancy, this seriously violates the human rights of the foetus and discriminates the fundamental principle of the value and right of life. This termination results in the foetus becoming a ‘silent’ victim of murder (www.prolife.org.uk). Many people and particularly those from religious backgrounds believe that nobody has the right to kill or take a life that god has created. Others argue that if

A fetus is made of everything that it needs to survive and become a human being with a distinctly human conscious, yet a fetus doesn’t have this conscious (Pro-CAN). Science has proven that the fetus doesn’t have a conscious during the standard time of abortion because a fetus doesn’t develop a nervous system or brain until the last stage of pregnancy. This following quote supports this claim: “Since consciousness depends on the development of the nervous system, and since it takes many months for the nervous system to mature, we can conclude that consciousness emerges gradually.” (Smith). Without a nervous system or a brain a fetus can’t feel, think, have emotions, memories, or awareness (Pro-CAN, and Smith). Thus, a fetus is as alive as a plant, a plant that can’t survive by itself. Furthermore, it is important to define human life before determining if a fetus experiences human life. The fetus is a live, and it is human, but it doesn’t experience human life because of it’s lack of human conscious. An actual human being experiences human life, therefore a fetus only has the potential to have a human conscious and does not actually experience human life (Pro-CAN). All of these statements conclude that a fetus doesn’t experience human life at the time of standard abortion, so consequently abortion isn’t

One of the main arguments against the pro-life movement is that the fetuses that are being removed are not humans and therefore do not have basic rights. When human sperm penetrates a human ovum, a zygote is formed. A zygote is undeniably human because it composed of human DNA that is unique from both the mother 's and the father 's individual DNA. From this, it can be concluded that abortion operations affect more than just the mother and her rights, it now includes the rights of the fetus. Also, the human zygote fulfills the scientific definition of an organism. The human embryo is a complex structure of independent elements designed to carry on the activities of life by separately functioning but mutually dependent organs. The human zygote also fulfills the four main categories of biological life: growth, reproduction, reaction to stimuli, and metabolism. Reaction to stimuli

Pro- life supporters also argue their beliefs using the idea that life starts at the moment of consumption. However, this is a question that can 't be answered by science because everyone has a different view as to when life actually begins. Some may believe it was when consumption happened, some believe it is when a baby first kicks, others believe it 's when the baby is viable to live outside its mother 's womb, this happens to be the most debated in the science/ medical communities because the viability age has changed with the advancement of technology, the pro-choice supporters usually believe that life begins once the baby takes its first breath, which is when it 's finally born.

Life begins at conception. Even the most deeply-rooted liberalists can not argue the abundance of scientific and medical evidence that supports that fact. Multiple

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.

A long on-going subject that has been greatly debated in our society is abortion. Many people argue that because the baby in the mother’s womb is not alive, aborting him or her is not considered a murder. However, others say that as the baby’s heart and brain are the first things to develop, the baby is technically alive and killing it would be a murder. As soon as the baby has a heartbeat, it has life. Abortion has many characteristics of a murder, including the killing of one human being by another, it’s unethical, and it is done without the consent of the person.

Political Science is a study that is in the process of progression. According to Douglas A. Van Belle, “faraway galaxies” have politics also. Pondering where people exist, interactions exist. Where people and interactions exist so do cultures and societies whose idiologies and customs very dramatically. I have always been attracted to politics and the more time I spend studing politics the more I realize why. “Political scientist do not agree on a definition” and for “more than 2,000 years” there has been different interpretations of what the science portion is inclusive of. In class we discussed this and we were presented with the interpretation of political science as “Who gets What, When, How” .

Is politics a science in the first place? Numerous scholars believe politics is too normative to be considered a “Science” and that the generalizations made in science cannot be implemented in politics, furthermore, some say it is more of an art than science. Aristotle described politics as the “Master Science” as it relates to all other disciplines such as economy and philosophy. Personally I had my doubts in the beginning of the course of how much science can be in politics and if it is truly a “science”. Looking into the definitions of politics and science, I came to the conclusion that politics is a “science”. Politics simply put by Harold Laswell is the study of “Who gets what, when, and how”. Science on the other hand is

As centuries have passed, political thought has undergone constant development and together with its development are changes. These changes had a tremendous effect in the discipline. Political philosophy continued to progress which affected both political theory and political science. It seems that with the progression of political philosophy, there was a growing need for the the discipline to become more scientific. They wanted it to be based on facts, to become value-free and to be precise. Political philosophy started veering away from the classics. Despite the continuous need to be scientific, there were still groups which remained inclined to the classics and believed that the traditions and values are essential in studying the discipline. These conflicting views concerning the traditionalists and the behavioralists caused the gap between political philosophy and political science and eventually the two separated. So it seems that as political philosophy progress, political science branched outside the academe and political theory, as it grew larger became more and more alienated.

When trying to understand why us humans do the things that we do, we seem to turn to any direction that will give us a glimpse of an answer to our intricateness. Even when it comes to political views and who we vote for there is answers in them that give us a clue to who we are mentally and even genetically. Common belief is that we form our own political opinions as we grow and are somewhat socialized by our surroundings, but generally we form our own ideals. A reporter, Aaron Lewis, gave an exposé published by Journeyman Pictures on the newly found studies of how genetics could be the reason we have particular political views, pick certain candidates, and explain how those choices yield a totally different outlook on life titled "How