Since the foundation of morality, people have always lived their life by code. A code that suggests

The articles “Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says ‘yes’” and “Is Morality Innate and Universal?” support the idea of a universal moral code across all human cultures.

In contrasting, other believers view abortion as an immorality. Because of this, the principle of free will does not allow any forecast based on the so-called prior cause, but it allows the self-determined and the external forces. The fact is that the principles of ethics are products of human beings, and moral responsibility itself is not indistinguishable in different traditions and societies. Therefore, according to Libertarians The Ideas of Free Will and Responsibility in Buddhist Ethics, “ if human beings are controlled by prior causes as a mechanistic system, then human behaviors can be predicted with the same degree of certainty”, however, human behavior is in fact non-mechanistic and exists in a biological system. With this being said, human beings acquire free will. Thus, human existence, in the ethical sense, is controlled not by external surroundings or by any prior foundation, but by the inner free will of each individual.

Morals are set standards of right and wrong for society as a whole. One ’s self image of morals are what the individual thinks is right and wrong according to what he or she learns; however, this “Internal compass” can be influenced because society controls most of what they learn. One’s self image of morals allows an individual to provide compelling arguments, provides emotional stability and allows for an individual to have predetermined views of right and wrong; on account of the fact that said individuals choose to follow the revolutionary figures who provide a strong base for the creation of one’s self image of morals. In most cases, religion plays a major role in the creation of this aspect of identity; made evident in Martin Luther

Abortion has been a major controversial issue for decades not only within the United States but around the world. I wanted to compare the beliefs of major world religions and American laws on abortion and see if there are any shared beliefs or where the belief systems or laws contrast the most. Abortion means the act of termination of pregnancy. The act is succeeded or accompanied by the death of the embryo or the developed fetus. Jewish, Muslim and Catholic at some degree defines abortion in the same line. However, in details the whole thing tends to differ. The whole discussion is full of contradictions since these three major world religions, to some extent, differs with the American view and laws on abortion. As abortion puts a new coating as a political alarm in the trending USA elections, Jewish approach and view to the whole issue is worthwhile to be discussed.

A huge controversy throughout an abundance of religions is the topic of abortion. This is a particularly sensitive subject because it deals with the delicate balance of life and death. Many people question who has the authority to end a life, especially an innocent child with no voice. People of the Jewish faith don’t believe in aborting a pregnancy. However, despite their strict rule, there is one circumstance where it is acceptable to abort the child. And this exception is only made when the mother is at high risk of death. Buddhism has a similar take on this concept. Similar to the Jewish people, traditional Buddhists believe it is inhumane to take another life unless the mother is on the verge of death. On the other hand, modern Buddhists have different views of abortion. Buddhists believe they are extremely responsible for each of their own individual actions and the burden it will bestow upon them. As well, they believe if the child will have severe medical conditions when it is born then it is okay to abort the child for the sake of the child

Buddhism does not have a single view on abortion. Generally they believe that life should not be destroyed. Traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves deliberately destroying a life. They believe in the cyclic view of reincarnation, indicating that life starts at conception. Abortions for the sake of the baby or mother may be permitted if there will be suffering. If the baby will have medical conditions or a mother’s life would be in danger, abortion is accepted. Abortion hinders the spiritual process in Buddhism.

It is at this point that the further morality related to the sustenance of religion is concerned. Some codes sustain the religion, and therefore the society. With one deity, or at least one ideal, to worship, the people can gather together about it, strengthening the bonds of the group while reinforcing the code which helps them work together. Some moral laws are designed around continuing this setup indefinitely; keeping the society static, as any surviving system does in its attempt to propagate itself. Additionally, some seemingly hypocritical mores, such as urged ruthlessness to enemies, are only to ward other cultures from overtaking and changing the system.

Although the history of legalizing abortion in Japan has been a long and a tumultuous one, there currently is universal acceptance of the procedure and its place in the social context. In the Buddhist view, according to the author of the article titled "Bla" David LeFleur, abortion is an essential social pain that is to be relieved through a ritual tradition. The Buddhists believe that it is crucial to provide the abortive ‘mothers ' and their fetuses with memorial rituals to alleviate the mother 's pain and a sense of guilt. The rituals called ‘mizuko kuyo ' play a significant role in the Japanese culture. It is believed that such rites not only play a therapeutic role in alleviating pain, but they also serve as a way for creating

Morally, morals, standards, are they the same for all people. Are these words interchangeable or not? Does morally change overtime or just our perspective of morally. Are most societies based on a morally standard that gotten corrupted over time, or is society not based on morals but people add morals to society? How do you tell what is moral and just and what is normal and you was taught to believe?

The logic behind each set of moral codes have been deployed to argue for as well as against the "permissibility of abortion" through the historical as well as textual corpus of Buddhist principles (Hughes 185). Buddhist principles are thus vital for Buddhist ethicists who argue against the practice of abortion according to Buddhist mores. Indeed, one of the top five guiding principles in Buddhists is not to kill another human being, and some ethnic Buddhists view abortion as the intention killing of a human life. They invoke the syncretic belief that the "transmigration of consciousness occurs at conception, and therefore all abortion incurs the karmic burden of killing" despite the fact that prior to modern medicine developing in the West and Buddhist countries Buddhists relied on scientifically inaccurate ideas about when life began (185). Buddhism thus lacks canonical currency and relevant precepts to the issue of abortion from an ethical as well as scientific point of

Within the variety of religions around the world are variations in beliefs and theologies. Some have minor differences, while others contrast in many elements of their overall core beliefs. Unlike denominational differences, religious differences create a deviation in the ideology of the religion, rather than just a disagreement of interpretation, such as in differing denominations. Buddhism and Christianity are two religions with significantly different viewpoints on religion and their overall beliefs. An evaluation of each religions ideologies concerning God, life after death, the purpose of life and the issue of salvation can provide insight into the differences in these two religions.

Hinduism strongly condemn abortions and they refer to abortion as garha-batta (womb killing) and the Atharva Veda describes abortionists as the greatest of sinners. Gandhi, perhaps the most respected Hindu of the twentieth century, said: "It seems to me clear as daylight that abortion would be a crime." (spuc.org.uk). Because this religious ban on abortion, it could mean that some woman affected by an unwanted pregnancy would then lack the option for abortion even in the severe case that the pregnancy is a threat to her life. Jewish law forbids the taking of innocent life and stresses that human beings are made in the image of God. Jewish law declared, "A descendant of Noah who kills any human being, even a foetus in its mother's womb, is to be put to death." The only exception was if the mother's life was in danger (spuc.org.uk). People who follow the Jewish religion are opposed to abortions meaning that they cannot look to this as an option or way out, but growing up against abortion may mean the difference of people making the mistake of having the pregnancy in the first place. Following the traditions of some religions may restrict you from going through with abortions, but this could affect you positively as this could mean that women following these specific religions would prevent the behaviour getting them in that stage in the first

Over the last 100 years, the manners and morals of the American society have shifted tremendously. The sudden change in the ways people relate, more so the moral codes of men and women have been attributed to the revolution by the successive “younger generations.” As such, it would appear as though the moral code continues to become weaker with the inception of every new generation. The revolution of the manner and morals can be traced to the 1920’s, and most of the blame for the depreciating moral code has been placed on the woman and the girl child. The society seems to have been better with the women being the custodian of the moral codes. However, the woman and the girl child has become a significant force of the revolution that has compromised the entire moral code of conduct and manners, and this is used as the major reason for the moral decay that is witnessed in the contemporary world.

As human beings, we all have people in which we are personally close with, or are apart of a profession. These key elements, friendship, family, and occupation, play a substantial role in statisitying the innate need to belong. But to what lengths should one go in order to satisfy this need? In some shape or form, everyone has been in a situation in which someone you are close with has done something that you personally consider immoral. Now you are faced with the dilemma of staying loyal to yourself, or momentarily changing your views in order to accommodate the actions of your friend. As an individual, it is invariably right to stay true to your beliefs.

Throughout all religions worldwide they all follow their own code for living that has been developed since they have been introduced, these religions have created a code for living to find their inner peace or strength. Buddhism and Islamic now go beyond religion and become more of a philosophy or way too live your life, both of these religions set out principles on how to live their lives and believe that if they follow their code for living and live their lives morally correct then they will go to a “better place”. Both Buddhism and Islam are trying to grow their religions and show all people their code of living so others can also strive for what they are looking for. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .