It would be far easier to digest a no-abortion stance from a person that has adopted children, and yet most if not all do not have adopted children. They are basically sending the message that all pregnancies should be taken to term but once the child is out of the womb then they are on their own.
The lack of support for neglected and orphan children is already at a level that is going to make people in the future look back and frown in the same way we frown at our ancestors for their treatment of other races. Unwanted pregnancy ruins the lives of good people. Most of the time is the woman that has to give up ever having a successful career and is quite often left without a man in her life. If the man is also a caring type, then he has to give up 20 years of doing what he wishes, and even his career will often take a knock, especially if he is the primary care giver.
People that do not have children will have more money, more life experiences, better health and a better career. All of this is taken away from people if they are not allowed to control when they do and do not conceive. I believe that abortion is morally and ethically wrong. In my opinion, when a woman chooses to have sex, she is taking a chance.
She does this of her own free will, and is in control over what she is doing. If a person decides to have sex, whether it is done with protection or not, the result is her responsibility and she must be willing to deal with the consequences. One such consequence is getting pregnant.
When a woman gets pregnant, it is usually a result of her own choices, even if the pregnancy is unwanted or unplanned. The most obvious reason why I think that abortion is immoral is because it is the intentional killing of a human being. The proposal to ban abortion legally is based on a claim that a pre-embryo is a person, whether other people believe it or not.
No matter what ordinary logic might indicate, the philosophical opinion of the theologian is really the truth. Those who disagree are misguided, uninformed, or willfully ignorant. A second feature of this approach is the contention that such moral premises are not sectarian or religious in nature. The Catholic dogma which holds that abortion is the taking of innocent human life is regarded as a principle of natural law.
It has roots in Greek philosophy but was wedded to Christian moral thought most systematically in the works of Thomas Aquinas. Basic to his approach was the notion that the laws of God permeate nature and may be discerned by human reason.
No special disclosure by God is necessary since all people are endowed by reason, he argued. The divine logos permeates all of creation and provides a link between the Divine and human mind; the very structures of nature are available universally and embody the absolute moral law of God.
It is thus held to be true for all people. Since it is available to and by reason, which all people have, and since it permeates nature, which everyone might observe, every person, whether believer or unbeliever, is obligated to obey the moral law. Since neither nature nor reason is the special monopoly of the religious, secularists or atheists are also capable of discerning the divine mandate—it requires no special revelation.
The moral rule can thus claim both religious and non-religious meanings and attempt to win the allegiance of both believers and nonbelievers. Such an argument allows the contention to be made that efforts to prohibit or severely limit abortion are not being made on the basis of religious or sectarian dogma and thus pose no First Amendment problems.
The natural law construct makes that contention possible, but it is hardly persuasive. The final step is from morality to law. When the truth of God is made obvious, the laws of the state should conform to it. Thus, the strict moral rule against abortion articulated by clergy should be implemented by civil law. To claim a monopoly on truth on both secular and religious ground is self-serving in the extreme.
It fits well in the scheme of the sectarian claim to be the final arbiter of all truth and the embodiment of divine revelation, that is, to claim an absolute grounding for conclusions supposedly based on human reason.
The Inquisition itself had been conducted on the fervent belief that the church was doing heretics a favor by saving them from the damnation to which their false beliefs would most certainly lead.
The absolutist attitude against abortion claimed by evangelicals of the new right makes similar arguments but appeals to the authority of Scripture instead of natural law theory. The fact that scholars equally committed to biblical authority do not agree with fundamentalist or evangelical interpretations does not deter them from the claim that the Bible teaches that zygotes are persons and that abortion is murder.
Their intolerance toward people with different opinions reflects assumptions about the special nature of their calling and the particularly offensive nature of elective abortion. The fact that Inquisitions and heresy hunts are now more subtle than those of the pre-Reformation era often conceals the fact that the same structure of thought and authority is still at work. When religious authorities make absolute pronouncements as if they were patently true and obviously obligatory for all people whether acknowledged as a faith commitment or not, an authoritarian claim is laid bare that is inimical to democratic processes and undermines respect for differing religious beliefs.
The clear message is that those who disagree are to be corrected or coerced to conform, since their opinions have no right to moral standing and thus are not to be respected in the court of conscience or, finally, even by civil law.
The appeal to privileged knowledge that is available only to those within a special circle but is somehow mandatory for everyone is especially problematic. The assertions of religious authorities must finally be submitted to the critical scrutiny of common sense and reason in a secular or pluralist society. Conclusion It can be concluded that abortion should not be legalized as religion does not permit its practice. Works Cited Cleghorn, J.
Review of Religious Research, 28 2t: Facts on File, , Our Right to Choose Boston, Mass.:
Essay about Being for and Against Abortion. For and Against Abortion There are many topics that most people are for and against which is I guess a normal reaction to some things. One of the most controversial topics would be abortion.
Essay about A Case Against Abortion - Every unborn child has the right to live, so why do people complete an abortion and kill the unborn baby. An abortion is very dangerous for a woman health, it is immoral, and punishes an innocent people.
The word abortion by definition means the induced expulsion of a fetus from the womb before it is able to survive independently. Abortion is an extremely controversial issue because while some people are completely against it, others believe that a woman should have the right to choose. The word abortion by definition means the induced expulsion of a fetus from the womb before it is able to survive independently. Abortion is an extremely controversial issue because while some people are completely against it, others believe that a woman should have the right to choose. I believe /5(9).
Free Essay: Abortion is fundamentally wrong. It is wrong because it goes against the basic rights guaranteed to every human being under the 5th 9th and 14th. An Argument Against Abortion Essay Words | 6 Pages An Argument Against Abortion Abortion is a serious topic that people have been debating about for years.