The Implication Of Abortion Free Writing Sample

Because of gender equality, incest and/or rape, economical factors, and the fact that abortion affects women disproportionately, abortions should not be banned. According to all of ethical belief and basic rights of a women to choose for herself as to whether she want the obligation of being a parent should be her choice. While it cannot be said whether an abortion is an unforgivable event, it is of course an unforgettable event. An abortion plays havoc with the psychology and the future life of the entire family. The woman who has lost her child, at any time between the pregnancy, will never be the same.

While the woman may be the hardest hit by an abortion, one also has to think about the mental and emotional state of the entire family (D’Silva,2007). If a women is faced a dilemma of whether to have an unwanted pregnancy because of lack of adequate funds to take care of a child with the basic needs of life that should be her choice to terminate that pregnancy. Sometimes as my friends confessed to why they chose to have an abortion was that they had a choice of having to bring shame on their family, and not wanting to leave school because of making a dreadful mistake.

According to Bonnie Steinbeck ; the implication of abortion is that it is not seriously wrong to kill a non-conscious, non-sentient fetus where there is an adequate reason for doing so, such as not wanting to be pregnant. She began by presenting briefly the view of moral status that she takes to be correct, that is the interest view. The interest view limits moral status to beings who have interests and restricts the possession of interests to conscious, sentient beings (Waller p. 268).

Steinbeck argues that to focus on the so-called elective abortions that those women who chooses to avoid the burdens of child-rearing, pregnancy, and childbearing. Most opponents of abortion say that abortion is wrong because it is the killing of an innocent human being. They see no morally relevant difference between an early gestation fetus and a newborn baby. The question, then ,is whether an early gestation ( or simply “fetus” as I will say from now on) is morally equivalent to a new born baby. This seems to me completely implausible.

By contrast, the first –fetus cannot think, feel, or perceive anything. The interest view is general theory about moral status, but it has implications for the morality of abortion. During early gestation, fetuses are non-sentient beings and, as such, they do not have interest. Scientist do not agree on precisely when fetuses become sentient, but most agree that first-trimester fetuses are not sentient. The reason is that, the first trimester, the fetal nervous system is not sufficiently developed to transmit pain messages to the brain (Waller p. 69). A. Robinson ( personal interview, January 25,2010) My question to Alicia was what was her reasoning for having an abortion, she replied that during this time in her life while trying to complete college and having thought about how her life would be with a child had definite consequences for her. Most surely her parents would be very hurt, and the shame she felt especially not knowing the outcome of the relationship she and her boyfriend at the time. My question was how did she make this decision and how hard was it to live with?

Alicia said that decision has haunted her until this day, however she did decide that her education at the time was more important than having that unwanted pregnancy. In summing up our interview she said if she had it to do again she probably would do the same thing however she would take better precautions as far as her birth control. She also realized that she took a chance that she had a choice to do the right thing for her life. Even though, today Alicia doesn’t have any children of her own she loves children and have several God-Children. The women’s liberation movement sees abortion rights as vital for gender equality.

They say that if a woman is not allowed to have an abortion she is not only forced to continue the pregnancy to birth but also expected by society to support and look after the resulting child for many years to come (unless she can get someone else to do so). They argue that only if women had the right to choose whether or not to have children could they achieve equality with men: men don’t get pregnant, and so aren’t restricted in the same way. Furthermore, they say women’s freedom and life choices are limited by bearing children, and the stereotypes, social customs, and oppressive duties that went with it.

It is a black-or-white issue for those who believe abortion is murder. Unlike the courts, which recognize variables such as a woman’s health or the circumstances under which conception took place, the pro-life movement condemns all abortions. And that is their constitutional right. The ability to peacefully assemble, express an opinion and petition the government for redress of grievances is not limited to either the pro-choice or pro-life movement. Rape and/or Incest and abortion According to Munson; “ Who believes that we need to deal with the fetus morally whether to abort or not.

We are told that performing the abortion would be directly killing the child, whereas doing nothing would not be killing the mother, but only letting her die. Moreover, in killing the child, one would be killing an innocent person, for the child has committed no crime, and is not aiming at his mother’s death” ( p. 69-80). Lockhart suggests that we should “perform actions that we are maximally confident are morally permissible. ” Translated into ordinary language this says that where we have to make a moral choice we should take the course of action that we are most confident is morally correct.

For example: A mother believes that it is morally permissible to abort the fetus she is carrying because tests show that it will have a serious disability. The mother believes that she should take the course of action that she is most certain is morally correct. She is certain that it is always morally permissible not to abort a fetus since she has some doubts (even though they are small doubts) as to whether an abortion in this case is morally permissible, she should not have the abortion.

In most cases a person who follows this doctrine is likely to decide against having an abortion. Women’s rights argue in favor of abortion. Here are some of the women’s rights arguments in favor of abortion: • Women have a moral right to decide what to do with their bodies • The right to abortion is vital for gender equality • The right to abortion is vital for individual women to achieve their full potential • Banning abortion puts women at risk by forcing them to use illegal abortionists

There are countless stories of women who had to make the hard decisions of aborting a pregnancy (without the input of a man). Whatever the reasons, nine times out of ten it usually is economical. An unwanted pregnancy could more times than not cause shame or guilt on the woman involved. Dropping out of school is usually not an option if the parents are financing the college education (in some cases the parents don’t know). Even though we have come a long way in society regarding shame, by that I mean “anything goes”, there is still a stigma in some families who are very involved in the church.

Fornication is voluntary sexual intercourse between a man and women who are not married to each other(. “Abortion affects women disproportionately Abortion is an important element of women’s rights because women are more affected by the abortion debate than men, both individually (if they are considering an abortion) and as a gender. Pregnancy has an enormous effect on the woman involved. As Sarah Weddington put it to the US Supreme Court in Roe v Wade: A pregnancy to a woman is perhaps one of the most determinative aspects of her life.

It disrupts her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And it often disrupts her entire family life. And we feel that, because of the impact on the woman, this is a matter which is of such fundamental and basic concern to the woman involved that she should be allowed to make the choice as to whether to continue or to terminate her pregnancy. According to philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson: “a great deal turns for women on whether abortion is or is not available.

If abortion rights are denied, then a constraint is imposed on women’s freedom to act in a way that is of great importance to them, both for its own sake and for the sake of their achievement of equality; and if the constraint is imposed on the ground that the fetus has a right to life from the moment of conception, then it is imposed on a ground that neither reason nor the rest of morality requires women to accept, or even to give any weight at all”(1971). Many people regard the right to control one’s own body as a key moral right.

If women are not allowed to abort an unwanted fetus they are deprived of this right. The simplest form of the women’s rights argument in favor of abortion goes like this: In summary: • women need free access to abortion in order to achieve full political, social, and economic equality with men • women need the right to abortion in order to have the same freedoms as men • women need the right to abortion to have full rights over their own bodies (including the right to decide whether or not to carry a fetus to birth) – without this right they do not have the same moral status as men.

Public policy debates ignited by special interest groups often lend more heat than light to issues. (Sanger, M. ) The US Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade, which gave women a right to abortion (under certain conditions) is seen by many as having transformed the status of women in the USA. As stated by Kathryn Kolbert (1992 ), American abortion law owes much of its present form to the case of Roe v Wade in 1973. “ This landmark decision… not only protects rights of bodily integrity and autonomy, but has enabled millions of women to participate fully and equally in society.

The important US Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade to some extent supported that view when it ruled that a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy came under the freedom of personal choice in family matters and was protected by the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution(1973) In Roe v Wade the Supreme Court held that a pregnant woman has a constitutional right, under the Fourteenth Amendment, to choose to terminate her pregnancy before viability as part of her freedom of personal choice in family matters (1973).

Marquis, although arguing a radically different position, was found to be equally disappointing. One still wonders what exactly makes such presentations “ethical. ” One must wonder what imperative can be derived from the fact that I don’t want my future to be eliminated in the face of a person that finds some “good” reason to end my life. It may be true that we don’t want to have our futures destroyed and that such a fact can be applied to fetuses that have not yet developed their nature to the point of consciously “seeing” that fact.

In my opinion, such a “truth” does not provide sufficient grounds for the intrinsic worth of human life, certainly not sufficient enough for us consider such issues as human potentiality and future and see them as deeply meaningful (Rachels, 1989)”. In summarizing the issue of abortion is one that has been debated argued from many stance’s. The religious morality against abortion verses the political stance on abortion viewing the women’s personal rights to have an abortion. This argument of the point was to have an abortion or not to have an abortion. The argument for and against continue to be a heated debate.

In conclusion of this argument my stance remains to be Pro-choice to be thankful that women don’t have to go into back alleyways with illegal abortionist to have an abortion. They have the choice to have a safe, and legal procedure. References: ROBERT MCCARTNEY. (2010, January 26). Young activists boost anti-abortion side. Virginian – Pilot, B. 7. Retrieved January 31, 2010, from Pro -Quest Newsstand. (Document ID: 1947466201). (Reprinted in “Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Medical Ethics,” 5th ed. , ed. Ronald Munson (Belmont; Wadsworth 1996). pp 69-80. ) Retrieved 21 January 2010 Robinson, B.

A. (1998 to 2009 ) Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. Last update: 2009-JUN-03 B. A. Robinson ] Marquis, Don “Why Abortion is Immoral,” Journal of Philosophy, vol. 86 (1989). Retrieved 21 January 2010 Hadley Arkes, First Things: An Inquiry into the First Principles of Morals and Justice, 363. Retrieved; 21 January 2010 Thompson, Judith Jarvis, Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 1, no. 1 (Fall 1971) A Defense of Abortion. Retrieved 17 July 2009 Waller, B (2008) Consider Ethics: Theory, Reading and Contemporary issues 2nd ed. Longman/Pearson, Bonnie Steinbeck, (1999) Why most abortions are not wrong,

Pride And Prejudice Characters With Analysis

Miss Bentley Is rich, attractive, elegant, snobbish, and conniving. She Is determined to marry Dairy, flattering him constantly though in vain and disparaging Lezzy at every opportunity. She treats Jane like a dear friend while secretly undermining her relationship with Bentley, who she hopes will marry Darers little sister. Charles Bentley Bentley Is half as rich as Dairy, meaning very rich Indeed, and he has Just begun renting a manor house near the Bennett’.

He Is outgoing, affable, good-looking, charming, and so open and artless that everyone can tell almost immediately that he s in love with Jane. But he is also somewhat flighty boasting to Mrs.. Bennett that “whatever I do is done in a hurry” and thus susceptible to the persuasions of Dairy and his sisters, who oppose his marrying into the Bennett family. Elizabeth Bennett The second of Mr.. And Mrs.. Bonnet’s five daughters, who has inherited her mother’s beauty and her father’s intelligence. At 20, Lezzy has perfect manners, but she is as witty and independent-minded as the period’s strict social code will allow.

She finds her mother’s vulgarity humiliating, but reproaching her for it, even in private, would be a breach of decorum. On the other hand, she publicly teases Mr.. Dairy for his lack of chivalry, and her willingness to assert her own opinions shocks Lady Catherine, who Is used to the deference and even the awe of those around her. As attractive as they are to modern readers, however, Lilly’s independence and willfulness are the chief obstacles in the book’s romantic plot, for they lead her to the prejudice of the title.

The night she meets Mr.. Dairy, he shows obvious contempt for her family, friends and neighbors, and she accidentally overhears him making some belittling remarks about her. That Is enough to convince her to deedless him on principle. Though Hickman later misrepresents Dairy’s character to her, she Is too eager to believe him, and too willing to ignore the inconsistencies in his story, because of her determination to think badly of Dairy.

Otherwise, however, she is a model of late-18th-century upper-class feminine virtue: like her father, she reads a great deal; she both plays the Plano and sings well; she Is clever of speech; and she Is a devoted and affectionate friend and sister. When Jane falls ill during her visit to Interfiled, Lezzy hikes three miles across country to take care of her climbing over fences and muddying her petticoats rather than recall NY of her father’s horses from their vital farm work. Bangle’s sisters deride such unladylike exertion, but it speaks volumes about Lilly’s sensibility, self-reliance, and compassion. Mr..

Dairy supplies the pride of the title, and he has good reason for it: he is not only tall, handsome, and clever, but filthy rich. At 28, he is the sole owner of the Pimpernel estate in Derbyshire, which generates an annual revenue of 10,000 pounds, making him one of England’s 400 richest people. Dairy is well bred he attends to all the formalities that civility demands of him but he does not go out of his way to make others feel comfortable. He has no patience for frivolousness: he would rather sit silent than engage in vacuous small talk, and he doesn’t like to dance, which is counted a serious fault in an eligible bachelor.

Because of his natural dignity and contempt for vulgarity, his reticence makes him appear haughty though that appearance is heightened by his arrogant conviction that, in accompanying his friend Bentley to Worcestershire, he has slipped several rungs down the social ladder. None of the locals likes him. But after Lezzy refuses his (first) offer of marriage, he proves himself, in an attempt to obtain [her] forgiveness” and “lessen [her] ill opinion,” capable of great charm and generosity. He even ignores the difference in rank between himself and Lilly’s uncle and aunt Gardener, who are not landowners.

We also discover that the housekeeper at his estate has “never had a cross word from him” in 24 years, that he is “affable to the poor,” and that he indulges and dotes on his younger sister though she still remains a little bit afraid of him. George Hickman Mr.. Hickman was Dairy’s boyhood companion and the son of his father’s steward, a former lawyer and an honorable man who ran the Dairy estate until his death. Hickman is polite, devastatingly handsome, charming, well-spoken and utterly worthless.

Dairy’s father had bequeathed Hickman a parsonage, which would have provided him a good, comfortable living, but Hickman renounced it in exchange for three thousand pounds in cash, which he quickly squandered. When Dairy refused to give him any more money, Hickman seduced his 1 5-year-old sister and attempted to elope with her. He leaves huge debts wherever he goes, and tries to insinuate himself with every rich woman he meets. Lane Bennett lane is the Bonnet’s oldest daughter, well bred, gentle, and even prettier than Lezzy Hough not as quick witted.

Indeed, she is so mild mannered that her ardor for Bentley looks to Dairy like complete indifference. She finds it distressing to think badly of anyone and is consequently the only resident of Worcestershire to find any virtue in Dairy. She cannot even motivate herself to censure Hickman, until she learns of his gambling debts. Jane and Lezzy are each other’s most intimate confidantes. Lady Catherine De Burgh Dairy’s aunt and Mr.. Collision’s benefactor: arrogant and vain of her rank, yet but takes pleasure in instructing all those around her in the conduct of their own affairs.

Despite her incivility, however, she requires constant company to stave off boredom. Mr.. Bennett Mr.. Bennett is a gentleman, meaning he lives off the rent and the farm revenue generated by his estate. He married his wife for her beauty and youthful exuberance, neither of which compensated very long for her inanity. He thus spends most of his time alone in his library, reading. While he commands deference as head of the household, his conversation is usually limited to mild but witty ridicule of his wife, neighbors, and younger daughters, whom he makes little effort to keep in line. Indeed, he makes little effort at anything.

He is, however, devoted to Lezzy, in whose intelligence and satirical bent he sees the reflection of his own. Milliamp Collins Since Mr.. Bennett has no sons, his 25-year-old nephew Mr.. Collins is, to everyone’s chagrin, the heir of his estate. He is also, in Lilly’s words, “a conceited, pompous, narrow-minded, silly man. ” Mr.. Collins owes his current position as a parson to the patronage of Dairy’s aunt, Lady Catherine De Burgh. He is awed by her nobility and talks about her, and the magnificence of her estate, almost constantly, adding homeless pandering to his habitual faults of long-windiness and pomposity.

Other Characters Mary Bennett: The third and plainest of the Bennett girls, Mary spends all her time playing the piano and reading moralistic literature that gives her an endless supply of sanctimonious aphorisms. Catherine (Kitty) Bennett: The fourth of the Bennett girls, Kitty tags after Lydia and complains when she doesn’t get as much attention. Lydia Bennett: The youngest of the Bennett girls, Lydia is a somewhat less attractive ‘erosion of her mother at 16: loud, exuberant, thoughtless, vulgar, and boy crazy. Edward Gardener: Mrs..

Bonnet’s brother, an honest, honorable, friendly man who lives in London. He is wealthy, but since he made his money in trade, the landed gentry look down on him. Mrs.. Gardener: Mrs.. Bonnet’s sister-in-law, whose good sense, good manners, and perceptiveness make her a favorite with Lezzy and Jane. Sir William Lucas: The Bennett’ neighbor in Worcestershire, Sir William is so outgoing that he sometimes oversteps the bounds of decorum, and so solicitous that he sometimes intrudes on other people’s personal affairs. But no one doubts his good heart. Partner.

The two women also have a friendly rivalry: Lady Lacuna’s estate is less grand than the Bennett’, but her husband is a knight; her daughter is less pretty, but she manages to get married first. Charlotte Lucas: Kind, plain, and practical, Charlotte is Lilly’s best friend until she shows the bad Judgment of marrying Mr.. Collins. At 27, however, Charlotte has few alternatives that will guarantee her as much security. Marie Lucas: Charlotte younger sister. Marries sole purpose in the story is to be so overwhelmed by Lady Catering’s grandeur that she can hardly speak. Georgian Dairy: Mr..

Dairy’s sister, 12 years his Junior, who worships her older brother and, because she finds his example so intimidating, is shy and diffident in public. Nonetheless, she is pretty, bright, kind, and accomplished. Colonel Fatalism: Dairy’s cousin, who is much more affable and outgoing, but much less dashing. Miss De Burgh: Lady Catering’s daughter, a sickly, pale, emaciated little thing who hardly speaks but nonetheless finds ways to be inconsiderate. Her mother intends her to be Dairy’s wife. Louisa Hurst: The eldest of Bangle’s two sisters, Mrs.. Hurst serves only to second her sister’s opinions and abet her connivance’s. Mr..

Hurst: Bangle’s brother-in-law, who lives only to hunt, eat, drink, play cards and, Nee none of those options is available, to sleep. Aunt Phillips: Mrs.. Bonnet’s sister, who is, if anything, even ruder and more embarrassing. Uncle Phillips: Mrs.. Bonnet’s brother-in-law, who inherited her father’s law practice In Emerson, a town Just a mile or so from the Bennett estate. Colonel Forester: The head of the militia unit in which Hickman enlists, which is Initially quartered in Emerson. Mrs.. Forester: The colonel’s wife, who, easygoing and exuberant herself, takes a liking to Lydia, thereby precipitating her disastrous elopement with Hickman.

Was Rousseau A Philosophe?

Was Rousseau a philosophe? Was Rousseau a philosophe? According to the Wikipedia definition of a philosophe, “philosophes were a new approach to learning that encouraged reason, knowledge and education as a way of overcoming superstition and ignorance. ” 1 The underlying goal of a philosophe was the concept of progress. Through the mastery and explanation of the sciences, humanity could learn to harness the natural world for its own benefit in order to live peacefully with one another.

Rousseau’s ‘Second Discourse’ does exactly that: It is an incredible re-creation of the concept of how man existed in a perfect state and ultimately led themselves towards voluntary enslavement. I believe it was Rousseau’s purpose to make the world understand the transformation that had occurred in an attempt to get humanity to revert back to a level of equality and co-existence that had once occurred naturally. The Second Discourse starts by illustrating pre-civilized man and his need to procure only the ‘bare essentials’ to fulfill a need for survival.

This idea of the noble savage is what he referred to as the happiest state of humankind: a middle state between completely wild and completely civilized. As his paper evolves, Rousseau shows rapid development for emotional and social change. Pity was one of the key principles that Rousseau identifies as existing prior to reason. He states that all humans feel a strong distaste on seeing the suffering of another sentient creature. Rousseau argues that because humans feel this impulse of pity towards others they will not willingly mistreat other creatures unless their own self preservation is at stake.

Self preservation is the other key principle which Rousseau attributes to his idea of Natural Right. The desire to preserve oneself is the only thing that can drive one being to harm another, but only in extreme circumstances. Through the evolution of man and the occurrence of village festivals, ideas such as competition were introduced. This caused what Rousseau called “Amour proper”; an acute awareness of, and regard for, oneself in relation to others. There was now a need to compete with fellow man in these competitions in order to be perceived better amongst his fellow man.

Whether it was to dance better, sing better, or even look better, important was now given to more superficial items, instead of on matters of survival. According to Rousseau, this was an incredibly harmful psychological transformation which was linked to the further degradation of human reason, and which ultimately led to fully formed political societies where material wealth dominated. Man’s perfectibility, his ability for “self improvement”, continued to shape his developments and the developments of his environment. These adaptations can be attributed to the development of reason and language.

Men began to interact with, and rely on one another on a more personal level. These interactions gave rise to new emotional responses which led to fear, deceit and personal gain. At the same time that human reason develops, and enlightenment emerges, man is corrupted and undergoes a decline from his original condition. Mental corruption occurs as man becomes subject to a new system of. His corruption is evident in the attention he now pays to the opinion of others, his loss of basic pity for other creatures, and his general dissatisfaction with life.

As Rousseau puts it in Part two of the Discourse, modern man has “nothing more than a deceiving and frivolous exterior, honor without virtue, reason without wisdom, and pleasure without happiness”. While the semi-civilized man continued to look inward for his values and happiness, the fully civilized man continued to look for happiness through material wealth and status. The result was moral corruption. Rousseau describes the resulting civilization as having been developed from fear and greed. The system of needs that enslaved modern man made him inauthentic to both himself and to those around him.

He cannot behave in an authentic way towards his fellow man, because he is continuously thinking of new ways to deceive them, while boasting his own image and security. As a result, it was ultimately up to man to create a “Social Contract”, or set of laws, in order to protect himself from his fellow man. Man would rather sacrifice a piece of his own freedom in exchange for his own security; and in the words of the great Ben Franklin “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. 2 The central argument of Rousseau’s ‘Second Discourse’ is to show that man’s civilization came at the cost of freedom and individuality. Rousseau tried to explain the human invention of government as a contract between the governed and the authorities that governed them. People were willing to give up their rights and freedoms to a higher authority because of their beliefs that those authorities would protect the very rights that they were so quick to give away. There can be no other definition of a philosophe than one who chooses to investigate the reasons for human behavior in order to shed light on where it has gone wrong.

Rousseau chose this quote from Aristotle to preface his work: “What is natural has to be investigated not in beings that are depraved, but in those that are good according to nature. ” How can man investigate and understand what is good and natural in nature when he lives in such a way that he cannot even see that he is being un-natural and unjust even to himself? And nothing, no matter how justified, is more un-natural than human inequality. Inequality was the central problem that Rousseau confronted through most of his work, which he sums up in the first line of The Social Contract: “Man is born free but everywhere is in chains. This central idea which played such a significant role during the Enlightenment, is alive even today both in the role of politics and religion. A major achievement of the age of Enlightenment was the breaking down of the barriers that existed either between man and state or man and church. It would seem that even through all of the progress throughout the centuries, we are not much farther along than we have been. Corruption is still given free reign while both economic and social inequality continue to run free.

Rousseau was indeed a philosophe for pointing out the injustices that existed between men and for providing a framework towards understanding and overcoming it. The past, for Rousseau, is a way to understand our present so that we can evolve together towards a single, common future. Works Cited 1. “Philosophe. ” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 2008 2. “Benjamin Franklin” WikiQuote: Benjamin Franklin. 2008 3. “Discourse on the Origin and the Foundations of Inequality among Men”. Jean-Jacques Rousseau. 1754. 4. The Portable Enlightenment Reader. Isaac Kramnick (Ed. ). (1995). New York: Penguin Books.