Abortion
...on make: a fetus is a person from the moment of conception but she said that abortion is morally permissible even it means killing the fetus and offered a number of analogies and/or hypothetical situations to demonstrate her point. Some of her analogies border on the absurd such as attempting to compare a young boy who does not want to share his box of candy with his younger brother to a pregnant woman who does not want to share her body with this unwanted fetus. It is simply not a rational comparison. Equally absurd would be to counter argue that the little brother is already living, the aborted fetus has not been given the opportunity to live. Ronald Dworkin argued that the law should not call abortion murder. For him, this is a First Amendment issue that deals with the separation of church and state. Dworkin's rationale focused on the fact that most religions do not agree on when life actually begins - at conception, as a four-month fetus or at birth. He alleged that abortion was a religious decision and as such should not be restricted by the law. Pope John Paul II, on the other hand, left no question about abortion in the Catholic Church. The Pope has often argued vigorously that abortion is murder and condemns laws that permit abortion as being intrinsically unjust, lacking in authentic juridical validity, and not being morally binding (Thomson, 1996; p. htm). Dworkin said that there should be an agreement on the sanctity of life, that there is an intrinsic value of life regardless of how it was conceived. But, Dworkin also promotes a metric of disrespect which allows him to distinguish between better and worse abortions and to justify some of the most accepted exceptions to a moral objection to abortion, such as in the cases of incest and rape. In other words, Dworkin does not take a legal stand. He does, however, take a religious stand and bases his arguments from that point of view. He also allows himself a comfortable escape from addressing the morality of abortion by giving exceptions -- his metric of disrespect which one could also call his line of tolerance. It is like a space within which the morality of abortion has no place. If it is a case of rape or incest, abortion is a moral act, otherwise, it is not a moral act. How can an act be moral sometimes and not other times? The fact is that the entire pro-abortion argument has consistently been based on lies. This is especially when the medical needs of aborting have been used as the basis for aborting a fetus. Supporters consistently use euphemisms such as terminating a pregnancy which is dishonest. They also say that the fetus is only a 'potential' human being as if this fetus might be born as something other than a human being. They argue that the decision concerning abortion should be between the woman and her doctor but they fail to point out that in the greater majority of cases, the woman has never met the doctor who will perform the abortion until the time of the procedure. Even in the very beginning of the legal controversy, the supporters of Roe v Wade argued were misled; they believed legal abortion would result in fewer unwanted children born, there would be fewer children living in poverty, and there would be less child-abuse. None of these predictions has materialized. It only takes reading the daily newspaper to show these arguments were empty wishes or hopes. In reality, the opposite has happened. The numbers of children abused and neglected is increasing exponentially. The number of children living in poverty grows every day. Based on these two facts, the number of unwanted children being born has not been reduced proportionately with the population growth, it has incre...