Abortion: A Pro-life Argument
Ellen Willis’s “Putting Women Back into the Abortion Debate” (2005) is an argument that supports women’s rights and feminism in terms of allowing all abortions to occur. She discusses abortion with the perspective that women’s rights are the issue, not human life. This argument is not accurate. Abortion is almost completely about the rights of every human being. People who are for abortion need to know a fertilized egg is just as important as someone already living, that an unborn child cannot control its need for someone to rely on for survival, and that they must accept the gender they were given without thinking it eliminates rights. Excluding rape and incest, abortion should not be allowed. Abortion is an issue of human life being endangered, not of whether women are allowed to live their lives with some rights that may be denied through childbearing.
The first minor claim made by Willis in support of abortion is that abortion is an issue of feminism, not of human life. She wants people to think women are forgotten in the debate about abortion. She states that “women and their bodies are merely the stage on which the drama of fetal life and death takes place” (Willis, 2005, p. 514). A woman and her unborn child are both considered more worthy than Willis is making them sound, which is the reason abortion is an issue that causes much concern for the human life of both the mother and the child. In order to compare these lives, it must be shown that both the mother and child are living. By Willis’ definition, the woman is alive because she has physical, emotional, and historical ties to the outside world. However, Willis’s definition is not the definition of human life. Accord...
... middle of paper ...
...int, so others need to stand up the child’s rights and not allow abortion.
References
Gargaro, C. G. (2002). Abortion violates human rights. In Williams, M. E. (Ed.).
Abortion: opposing viewpoints. (pp. 36-44). San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc.
Virus. (2005). Encyclopedia.com. Retrieved March 6, 2005. <http://www.encycloped
ia.com/html/section/virus_viralinfectionofahostcell.asp>
Willis, E. (2005). Putting women back into the abortion debate? In Barnet S., & Bedau H.
(Eds.). Current issues and enduring questions: a guide to critical thinking and
argument, with readings. (pp. 514-520). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Zugibe, F. T. (2004). The code for human life [electronic version]. E-forensic
medicine. Retrieved March 6, 2005. <http://e-forensicmedicine.net/code.htm
words along with a tremendous amount of credibility. Turner's words in "The Hurt Locker" create a window for his readers to see through h...
Fate vs Free Will is one of the most oft used literary techniques in writing. It is never more evident than in Shakespeare’s play Macbeth. The major theme of the story Macbeth is whether or not the story is fueled by the free will of Macbeth, or by his fate. Are the events in Macbeth a result of his mentality and outlook on life, or were they going to happen no matter what? Almost every major event that takes place can be traced back to this question. It can be viewed in different ways, and most people have their own opinions. Dissecting this question is a part of what makes teaching Macbeth still have so much value to this day. But there is a clear answer to this question upon further dissection. The story of Macbeth is fueled by his free will, which he perceives to be a necessary part of achieving his fate.
This essay examines and critiques Judith Jarvis Thomson’s, A Defense of Abortion (1971). Thomson sets out to show that the foetus does not have a right to the mother’s body and that it would not be unjust to perform an abortion when the mother’s life is not threatened. For the sake of the argument, Thomson adopts the conservative view that the foetus is a person from the moment of conception. The conservative argument asserts that every person has a right to life. The foetus has a right to life.
In the United States, the Electoral College determines the victor of a national election. Each state has its own number of electoral votes, which is determined by state population. This system is a “winner takes all” system. Which means the candidate with 50 percent or more of the votes in an individual state gets all of that states electoral votes. The 2016 presidential election will have 538 electoral votes, this means that the election will be decided who is the first candidate to 270 votes. Some people have seen this system as outdated and unjust. Many are looking at a way to change the system and others would like to do away with the system
For many years, America has had a misconception of immigrants. Most Americans think them to be taking up space, money, and jobs, but that’s not it. U.S. born citizens have the wrong impression of immigrants, which technically has them judging themselves because all U.S. born citizens have a family background with at least one immigrant that came to the U.S., as stated in “Religious Issues in American Immigration,” “All Americans are immigrants” (Granquist). Even U.S. born citizens have a trace of immigration in their family history leaving them with no room to judge others. Americans have common misconceptions of a lot of things and immigration happens to be one of them. However, that is not to say that it is not a fixable problem. Through the past years of politics and reforms in the U.S, we have begun to fix prejudice towards immigrants, as well as start to understand why it is occurring. America has made improvements in having equality in culture, religion, education, and language which made it a better environment for the immigrants. America managed to throw out the hardships and stereotypes of immigrants and realize how they are benefitting. After reforms were put in place to increase equality and decrease prejudice, America benefited socially and economically. Since immigrants increased the supply demand, they created more jobs. This in turn brought a rise of the economy. America made some of the most appropriate changes in order to benefit others as well as themselves. Because of the advanced reforms in America and the determination for no prejudice towards immigrants, the environment became better and America started to benefit.
In order to understanding how women have been discriminated against we must know the history behind the most controversial topic in women’s rights, abortion. For decade’s legal scholars, social movement activities, and historians, have agreed whether women actually had rights when it came to abortions and understanding the pro-life feminist reform. In Mary Zeigler, "Women's Rights on the Right: The History and Stakes of Modern Pro-Life Feminism.” Pro-life advocates have argued that “abortions cause more to the woman rather than help them.” (Zeigler233) One of the most popular known cases is Gonzales v. Carhart which attempted to justify abortion restrictions on the very basis of the physical or psychological harms that could or assumed to be caused or produced by the actual procedure.(Zeigler234) However, women protective claims, only one part of larger strategy that this Article calls prolife feminism. The article also identifies potential common ground among those proclaiming to be feminist with different positions on abortions. Both pro-choice and pro-life scholars have written extensively on how to their arguments as forwarding women
... weaker state will remain neutral from a military strength. Melians’ loss reaffirms the absolute power of imperial conquests and nationalism in theories of realism. Since the Melians were allied with the Spartans and failed to cooperate, it is justifiable that the Athenians had the right to want to rule and invade the Melians as means to protect their own strengths.
In the case of Sarah Grosvenor and Amasa Sessions it is evident the roles that society and gender played in the decision of abortion. Sarah lost her life because in that era you could not openly discuss the issue of abortion, and Sessions was praised because he pushed for the abortion and would not bring a bastard child in the world. Abortion still remains today a very controversial topic, and one that many people are not accepted no matter what their view is on the subject. There still remains pressure from many people in society and today’s culture to persuade one’s opinion and decision on abortion. Although it is not talked about, other than people protesting against, or for their rights, it is a legal act, and ultimately the decision of the woman.
The permissibility of abortion has been a crucial topic for debates for many years. People have yet to agree upon a stance on whether abortion is morally just. This country is divided into two groups, believers in a woman’s choice to have an abortion and those who stand for the fetus’s right to live. More commonly these stances are labeled as pro-choice and pro-life. The traditional argument for each side is based upon whether a fetus has a right to life. Complications occur because the qualifications of what gives something a right to life is not agreed upon. The pro-choice argument asserts that only people, not fetuses, have a right to life. The pro-life argument claims that fetuses are human beings and therefore they have a right to life. Philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thomson, rejects this traditional reasoning because the right of the mother is not brought into consideration. Thomson prepares two theses to explain her reasoning for being pro-choice; “A right to life does not entail the right to use your body to stay alive” and “In the majority of cases it is not morally required that you carry a fetus to term.”
One of the most disputed subjects into day’s society is abortion. Children have been sacrificed by millions of women all across the world. There’s always a powerful urge to vindicate the suffering, emotional pain, and deprivation by the mother and her significant other. Therefore, in any debate, you will run up against an invisible brick wall. Which means even the greatest Knowledge will neglect to influence. When it comes to abortion the best way to tackle the subject is through facts. Some of the wondrous arguments stem from the law, science, and the rights women have to aid the pro-life case opposed to abortion.
...his wife caused Macbeth to kill the King, kill his best friend Banquo, and kill his counterpart Macduff’s family. These choices eventually caused his downfall; in the form of a beheading by Macduff. The concept of fate against free will is often examined in Macbeth, which is what Shakespeare wanted people to do, and in real life. Many people believe that everyone controls their own destiny; that the outcome of their life is based upon the decisions they make. Others conclude that people have a set path through life. Some conceive the idea that life is a mix of both, where people’s decisions have an impact on their life, just not on the outcome. The concept of “fate vs. free will” will continue to be examined, and plays like Shakespeare’s Macbeth allow people to do that.
The branches of the military, for a couple generations, have always been the Army, Navy, Air force, Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard; however, in an ever evolving digital world, the notion that outer space would be the next military front is being rapidly replaced by the idea that cyber space will be the next arms race. The United States has been defending attacks on their infrastructure day after day, night after night, when one hacker on one side of the world sleeps, another takes their place to attempt to compromise the US government. The motives may range from a political ‘hacktivist’ trying to prove a point, to an economic spy, trying to gain a competitive edge on its more upstart rivals, to an attempt to control the United States ‘smart’ power grid, giving a nation an advantage in case of an external armed conflict. With all of those types of conflicts going on at the same time, relentlessly, and growing more complex every day, the United States has to step up its game in order to survive, and the government is planning its cyber strategy accordingly. In November 16, 2011, according to an unclassified cyber-security bulletin, the United States government for the first time ever will allow offensive cyber retaliation, something that china has been doing for years; the retaliation order from the United States, however must include an approval by the president (Parnell). The United States government said they are now working on the cyber rules of engagement for this new battle “Domain” as they called it. Governments around the world are gearing up for it, but the definition of cyber warfare is a little bit hazy. Richard A. Clarke defines it in 2011 in his book Cyber War as "actions by a nation-state to penetrate another nation...
Paisley. "The Impact of a Cyber War." Defense Tech RSS. N.p., 16 Jan. 2008. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. (Source H)
National and International Security is a sum of the actions taken by countries and other organizations that can guarantee the safety and well being of their population. It is vital for a nation to pre-emptively discover what issues could affect their security, and take action to prevent any detrimental or harmful events from happening. With the development of technology and the transition into a more technologically savvy society, cyber security has become one of the most prevalent and important economic and national security issues that the United States will come to face.