Philosophy 345 Sacred Life Research Paper

In the article, “A Defense of Abortion” by Thomson, the author states the two points that contradict the most the right of a fetus and the right of a mother. The authors main stance, is there are abortions that are morally permissible and impermissible under certain circumstances. Thomson, makes the assumption that a fetus is a person so she can prove abortion is permissible in some situations. The author states, under three cases abortion is permissible and she further elaborates on the premise with analogies she presents. The first case is rape. She proposes an analogy, that you have been kidnapped and wake up in the hospital and they plugged you in with a violinist because it needs a kidney for nine months and if you decide to unplug it,

Secondly, there may be an objectification to this premise. If everyone has a right to life, and an equal right to life, wouldn’t it be unjust to kill the innocent fetus? The mother, and a doctor, would essentially be committing murder of an innocent by taking it’s right to life away, even if it just depriving it of something it needs. Even if the pregnancy were to put strain on the mother or harm her in some way, or even cause her death. Wouldn’t it be better to let someone die, rather than murder an innocent? In most modern societies, killing an innocent is always impermissible. Innocent people do not deserve to die, so this premise alone could make getting an abortion impermissible. Another objectification would be since the mother and the fetus have an arguably equal right to life, how do you choose who gets to live and who gets to die? Most pro-life supporters would argue that you can’t choose and nature has to take its course and therefore, abortion would not be permissible.

This helps portray that a child’s right to life can even trump the right to life of the mother. This is used as an example to which the mother becomes pregnant but later finds out that she has a cardiac condition such that she will die if she carries the baby to term. It is said that performing the abortion would be directly killing the child, whereas doing nothing would not be killing the mother, but only letting her die (267). Going off this, directly killing an innocent person is impermissible. If one may have the option, they must let the mother die; thus saying, an abortion will not be performed. Thomson also criticizes the method of deducing a woman’s right to abort from the permissibility of a third party committing the abortion. She ends up conceding that the third party indeed cannot make the choice to kill the person being crushed or the child. This saying, it does not mean that the person being crushed cannot or will not act in self-defense to save their own life. To conclude this brought up point, we are not personally obligated to help the mother with her demands but this does not rule out the possibility that someone else may

People opposed to euthanasia may argue that physician assisted suicide is going against God. However, people shouldn’t lengthen the process of dying than what is absolutely necessary. In his article on euthanasia, Steve Seibold wrote, “If someone chooses to believe that God wants her to suffer through a terminal illness that's her decision, but when you force the rest of us to obey laws based on evidence-less beliefs, it’s wrong and needs to be stopped.” Others may possibly mention that life is sacred and euthanasia cheapens the value of life. On the other hand, all people, who are mentally capable of deciding, should have equal rights and opportunities to live, or to decide not to continue

Euthanasia has been a controversial topic since the ancient Greek physicians. The word euthanasia has been used since the history of medicine. The Greek physicians or Hippocrates took an oath that they would never give their patients anything even if they requested it. The Hippocratic Oath has been used since 2,300 years ago until today (Harrigan). In the seventeenth century, American common law has punished people who have committed mercy killing. Then in the Enlightenment, writers “assaulted the church’s authority” of the teachings of euthanasia (“Historical Timeline”). A author from the Historical timeline said that if someone “condemned suicide as a wrong” and injures people and the community, then it “violates God’s authority over life.” The author says that someone killed a person or was asked to, then it violates God’s authority to give life to that person.

If the fetus was not given a consensual right to use the mother’s body then the mother should not be obligated to bear the child. Thomson makes the implications several times when she discusses how the unborn child came to be. The “unborn persons whose existence is due to rape have no right to the use of their mother’s bodies, and thus that aborting them is not depriving them of anything they have a right to and hence is not unjust killing” (Thomson 342). Again, we see this idea of the fetus being given the right to use the mother’s body. From here we can imply that if the unborn child was brought about due to rape then abortion

Father Frank Pavone states on his article “Brief Reflections on Euthanasia” that “No matter how ill a patient is, we never have a right to put that person to death, we have a duty to care for and preserve life” along with “There are groups in our country pushing for the right to use lethal injections on the seriously ill, or to remove their food and water. We must oppose such moral nonsense with all our strength.” Euthanasia is a fine see-saw and the people who are pro life believe that if we start to allow euthanasia on the ill, eventually it will become an easy way out to just about anyone who is having any sort of hardship in their life. The other topic of argument is the religious aspect of this issue. In “Brief Reflections” it also states that “Our society has created a world in which it is always possible and always considered right to take the easy way out of problems, suffering and death. That way is completely against the example Jesus set for us; it is against Christian values. We, as Christians, must form a counter-culture. We do not pray for an easy, free or painless life and death. Rather we should pray for strength to sustain and understand the life God gave us to live.” People believe that euthanasia is messing with “god’s plan for us” because he “decides” when it is time for us to die. Now, in the case that someone is in intolerable pain, it is our duty to

Many argue is it the women’s or the foetus’ rights and values that are being trampled on? “Pro-choice movements sometimes fall back on an abortion rhetoric that seems to dehumanize and trivialize the death of a foetus as a way to humanize and make important the reproductive rights of women.” (Wolf p54) “Women can treat an unwanted foetus as a violation of her civil rights and is therefor justified tin using force to expel it” (McMillan pA12) The decision is not up to the mother because she is not God. Only God, the ultimate creator has the right to choose who may live and who shall die. Humans do not have the right or the power to control the quality of life and to avoid suffering. “The issue of abortion is not just life, but how life is created and the extent to which human intention and control the process, both before and after birth.

It is a woman’s right to make decisions about her body. If she is the one that undergoes the stress that comes with childbirth, then it should be her right to ,and her right alone to decide whether or not she wants to go through it or not. Not doing so would violate her right to freedom of choice, as well as lead to unsafe abortions that could harm the mother (Nair, 2010). Another question is how could you kill a fetus or embryo when it is the same as a human being? Which begs the question, if the fetus is alive, then so are the eggs and sperm? How do you make the distinction?

Sacred relationships are very different, for they are based on the interaction of two souls with one another who aspire to, and are beginning to have the capacity to share life with each other from the standpoint of the soul.

As a Christian, I believe life is should be special, sacred, and respected. God sanctified life when he gave it to us. My definition of the sanctity of life is that life is something to be cherished and appreciated, not something to take for granted or call your own- because your life is not your own. For example, recently, around five hundred and seventy-five people were shot on Sunday night. This is a great example of how the shooter saw no value in the lives of those he killed, including himself.

Does a women’s right to choose to have an abortion outweigh a baby’s right to be born? The controversy at hand is whether the rights of a women outweigh the rights of a baby, and whether a mother should be given the rights to pursue a procedure like an abortion. To clarify an abortion is a medical procedure that ends a pregnancy in which a doctor uses a vacuum and suction to suck out a fetus from the uterus. The issue is whether the fetus who has the potential to be a rational, productive human being has the unequivocal rights of any other human being and whether he or she should be protected from, in every sense of the word, murder. The argument made by abortionfacts.com a nonprofit Christian pro-life education organization, is that

Through the ages, pioneers have been an important part of our history. Driving through their beliefs to the masses and sticking their necks out to push forward their beliefs. I have chosen three that I consider did the most to contribute towards the Spiritual Religion we have now and dedicated their life works. The first being Sir Arthur Conan Doyle an outstanding well-respected person in the community. Not only of his writing on Spiritualism but for his famous Sherlock Holmes stories. Secondly chosen Emma Hardinge Britten a strong lady of her time a copious writer, the founder of the Seven Principles are using today and the founder of the “Two Worlds” Magazine. Lastly chose is Gordon Higginson an outstanding medium with strong evidence of spirit of the last Century, a teacher to impart the knowledge also continued to study as far as the Ministry and President of the SNU.

Euthanasia is a challenge for me as a Christian because it is not clear what it considers to be okay according to God’s word, It allows Euthanasia of non-terminally ill people, and a duty to die.

What modern people call “euthanasia” is, in my opinion, still murder. It may be a “mercy killing” but it is still a killing. On top of that, when one person asks another to help them die, it is not only murder but suicide. Furthermore, from a religious perspective, life is in the hands of God and only God can decide when a person dies. Consequently, no person has the right to decide when another person dies. Of the Ten Commandments, the fifth says “Thou shalt not kill.” The process of dying is a spiritual matter. Jesus on the cross chose to suffer until his death, without taking the medicine that would allow him to forget his pain. How long we live is determined by God. Accordingly, people cannot choose