In most societies, people will tend to define “good” as whatever brings pleasure and happiness and “bad” as whatever is burdening or distressing. Therefore, we should seek out the good in life and avoid the bad. However, in cases of abortion where a potential life is considered “bad”, is it justified to remove it? After all, life is often viewed as the highest intrinsic good, and thus deliberately taking it away becomes a serious moral issue. Pro-life arguments, or arguments opposing abortion, claim that each human has a right to life, a child is a human at the moment of conception, and we have obligations to protect lives. Pro-choice arguments, or arguments supporting abortion, argue that a child’s life begins at birth, a woman has the ultimate
…show more content…
However, LAWS in and of themselves tell up what we can or cannot do with our bodies. They say our bodies cannot be moving over ~~ on the~~. Our bodies cannot do certain medicine, alcohol laws, curfew, murder, poison. If we say it being human that gives us rights, we can reason from the arguments I gave about ~~ babies are logically human at the moment of conception. I want to analyze the possibilities of my own weaknesses. For example, just because I may be able to (prove) that a human being is technically alive at the moment of conception, this does not necessarily determine that it has the same rights. After all, we do not allow ~~ to do ~ or ~~. In examples such as these, rights such as life may also be included. Since the mother is the being that was there first, it does sound reasonable that she should be able to In conclusion, taking the life of a baby, no matter which stage of development it is in, is wrong because it is murder. Once a sperm and egg meet, the combination of those two ~~ becomes a unique code of DNA that will create a human being. No matter which stage of development comes after, killing this being is the same as killing a full-grown human, because ~~. In my opinion, killing this child is even worse, because, regardless of whether or not it is aware of its rights or future, a person is still robbing that child of its own gift of
However, LAWS in and of themselves tell up what we can or cannot do with our bodies. They say our bodies cannot be moving over ~~ on the~~. Our bodies cannot do certain medicine, alcohol laws, curfew, murder, poison. If we say it being human that gives us rights, we can reason from the arguments I gave about ~~ babies are logically human at the moment of conception. I want to analyze the possibilities of my own weaknesses. For example, just because I may be able to (prove) that a human being is technically alive at the moment of conception, this does not necessarily determine that it has the same rights. After all, we do not allow ~~ to do ~ or ~~. In examples such as these, rights such as life may also be included. Since the mother is the being that was there first, it does sound reasonable that she should be able to In conclusion, taking the life of a baby, no matter which stage of development it is in, is wrong because it is murder. Once a sperm and egg meet, the combination of those two ~~ becomes a unique code of DNA that will create a human being. No matter which stage of development comes after, killing this being is the same as killing a full-grown human, because ~~. In my opinion, killing this child is even worse, because, regardless of whether or not it is aware of its rights or future, a person is still robbing that child of its own gift of