Ronald Dworkin is a contemporary American scholar
of constitutional law. In Dworkin's book, Life's dominion: an argument
about abortion, euthanasia, and individual freedom, he mentioned on
page 29 that there are two arguable aspects in abortion issue. The first
concerns whether the embryo has the two morally relevant qualities or not,
benefits of living continuously and rights to protect these benefits. If the
answer to the first question is yes, then we can get derivative objections
against abortion and the derivative reasons of allowing law to prohibit or to
restrain abortion.
And then
here comes another query, is abortion sometimes wrong morally not because it
makes somebody unfair or non-right but because it denies and offends the
sacredness or irreverence of human lives? Suppose the second question is true,
this is detached objections against abortion and it can also hold detached
reasons which arguing abortion is illegal or it has to be regulated instead of
mentioning derivative objections and explanations.
On page 40, Ronald brings up the ideas of typical liberals
against abortion. They insist that abortion is always the serious moral
decision made at least after embryos' individual genetic qualities established
and successful embryo implantation.(usually about fourteen days following
pregnancy) From that time on, abortion means eliminating a human life that has
already begun. Only due to this cause, it involves in solemn moral expense.
It is by no means allowable to take abortion by
virtue of tedious and trivial reasons. Unless abortion is taken in order to
avoid tremendous harm, or there are no excuses for abortion. The following are
false actions. A woman takes abortion because of a long-expecting Europe
journey, being more comfortable when getting pregnant in other seasons, the embryo
being a girl and she wanting a boy and so on.
Decision of abortion involves moral
aspects. Both derivative and detached objections stand against abortion. When
contemplating on whether taking abortion or not, we need to take embryos’
benefits of living and the holiness of human lives into account. Even though
somebody may think an embryo is not a complete life therefore does not equip
with human rights, but it is out there, just inside the mother’s uterus,
beating and beating feebly. It is certainly being. It deserves the basic rights
to continue living which nobody can deprive of.
As for the abovementioned motives of abortion, college
female students may find other reasons other than merely boring and petty ones
such as economical burdens and psychological pressure. If students can find ways
to balance the difficulties, I think they should not give up their babies
easily since the action also entails mothers shouldering ethical loads and
social judgments. Abortion is not always the best refugee from the upcoming
responsibilities. Take it and let the embryo proceed with its lives.
Reference:
Ronald
Dworkin. (2002). Life’s
dominion: an argument about abortion, euthanasia, and individual freedom. (Ya-Ru
Chen,Zhen-Ling Guo, Trans.)
The forth paragraph, "Unless abortion is taken in order to avoid tremendous harm, or there are no excuses for abortion." -> It should be "Unless abortion is taken in order to avoid tremendous harm, there is no excuse for abortion." Both of Unless and Or are conj.
回覆刪除You use many good words in this annotation, but I see you mention some exceptions in your sentences. The more space you accept taking abortion(like tremendous harm or if they cannot balance those difficulties), the less powerful the states will be.
Thanks for your remind.^ ^ I already corrected my grammar mistakes.
刪除But i think the exception is acceptable because now, our topic focuses on college students, not those mothers with tremendous harm.