Aborton, Genetic Control, Euthanasia & Religion

Her fundamental argument is that free access to abortion is not a requirement for women's social and political equality and, furthermore, that it might be counterproductive in the effort to achieve those ends. She explored the opposing viewpoints by setting forth the basic arguments of each side.

For the pro-choice feminists, she chose Harrison and Petchesky as exemplars of the position. There basic arguments rested on four moral claims: (1) that women have the right control their own bodies, (2) that there was a moral necessity of autonomy and choice in personal responsibility, (3) that the fetal life has contingent, rather than intrinsic, value, and, (4) that women have a moral right to full social equality.

For the pro-life feminists, she also sets forth several moral claims which are fundamentally different from those of the pro-choice feminists. The arguments do not exactly contradict the previous arguments, but state the issue in different terms. Thus, the pro-life feminists assert that (1) there needs to be a more inclusive ideal of justice, (2) an expanded sense of responsibility, (3) a moral claim for the intrinsi

. . .
, although that does happen, but because they are limited. They have a limited understanding of what is good and necessary and they are not able to anticipate all unitended consequences. Thus, a utilitarian perspective, which aims for the greatest good for the greatest number of people, can be a problem because that good is defined by limited human beings. In their view, it might be best for society as a whole to eliminate genes that would create such things as ALS, Huntington's Disease, cancer, etc. This would help society by limiting social expenditures on medical services and would alleviate pain and suffering. It might, however, also change society in important ways. The people affected by a particular disease or condition might become who they are at least partially because of their condition. Likewise the people around them, including friends, family, medical staff, etc., might be partially shaped by the problem. For an example, an individual with ALS might call forth the compassion in his family and friends, serve as a model for dignity in suffering, influence children who know him to go into medicine, and contribute to many other unintended consequences. Eliminating the ALS changes the social situation and those peo
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Strengths Weaknesses, Reproduction Similar, Eliminating ALS, John Paul, Harrison Petchesky, Golden Rule, Paul II, Huntington's Disease, CW Lewis, Sidney Callahan, natural law, personal autonomy, human life, genetic control, utilitarian perspective, intrinsic value, law perspective, natural law perspective, john paul, natural law approach, social equality, life intrinsic value, pro-choice feminists, value human life, personal autonomy perspective,
Approximate Word count = 2330
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page)