In her essay “Pro-Child / Pro-Choice: An Exercise in Doublethink?” Judith A. Boss deconstructs the argument supporting legalized abortion on the basis that it is beneficial to children in general. Boss presents the oft-used slogan of the pro-choice position, “Pro-Child / Pro-Choice”. She maintains that this slogan seems closely related to “newspeak”, which she characterizes as “…vocabulary pared down to a minimum so that whole ideologies are expressed in a single slogan…” (156-7). The term “newspeak” comes from George Orwell’s 1984. In the novel, these simplistic slogans serve to perpetuate “doublethink”, which entails, as Orwell writes, “holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously and accepting both of them” (156). Boss also explains, “Doublethink is maintained by a refusal to examine the assumptions and facts supporting one’s beliefs” (156). In order to weaken the pro-child/pro-choice position, Boss begins by presenting the “assumptions and facts” supporting it.
Boss states that the basic assumption behind the pro-child /pro-choice position is the belief that “…the exclusion of humans prior to birth from the protection of the moral and legal community, thereby leaving the choice of carrying a pregnancy to term entirely up to the woman, benefits children” (157). Boss creates two categories of children and presents the possible benefits that abortion-on-demand provides. The first category, the unborn child, benefits because his or her “… abortion will spare him or her a life of misery” (157). On the other hand, the second category, the born child, benefits because he or she “can enjoy a higher quality of life and paternal love unhindered by the presence of burdensome siblings who were...
... middle of paper ...
...recognizes that the true utility that legalized abortion serves may lie in the benefits that it presents to women and that those benefits may appear in the form of social empowerment. It does seem that since 1973, women have been able to empower themselves in the occupational realm. However, Boss leads us to ask ourselves if this professional empowerment of women has come at any cost. In order to understand the true utility of allowing abortion-on-demand, one must weigh all the consequences it creates. It seems though that we have not appropriately measured the consequences of ensuring abortion-on-demand.
Questions:
How is doublethink mutually exclusive with the correct use of utilitarian theory?
What positive consequences, if any, come from ensuring abortion-on-demand?
How does one ensure that every child is a healthy child? Is it even possible?
...ere given to any former confederate (excluding military and governing officials) and states were allowed to meet after 10 percent of the voters pledged allegiance to the Union. The death of Lincoln changed all of that. Some historians even argue that his death instigated the future power struggle in the government thus lowering the quality of American politics for the next few decades. 8Andrew Johnson, vice president under Lincoln, was a born southerner while the current congress was filled with radical republicans. Polar opposites indeed. All in all, I enjoyed reading Killing Lincoln. My only criticism of the book is the unnecessary chapters. I felt there were points in the book where the authors could have made their point sooner but instead dragged it out. I would recommend this book to any history student looking for an interesting yet simple read. It’s perfect!
The way the book interested me was in a very strange way, the book made me feel scared for Booth but happy because the President would be avenged. The tone of this book made it feel like a wild goose chase. The book also made many of the people from the past look very stupid, because many of the searchers could have found Booth without burning him to death, but instead, they chose the wrong lead. But many of the “I am going to get caught” feelings that Booth and David Herold felt while on the run, connect with me because I can relate to those feeling. But I wouldn't get killed for lets say “stealing” a
...ys open to new ideas is most likely the reason why James Franco is so successful today.
In her essay, “A Defense of Abortion,” Judith Jarvis Thompson outlines the most common arguments that people defend, and explains her views regarding each of these. She shares numerous examples and situations that she believes will support her views. One of her most prominent arguments is that of whether or not a fetus has moral standing as a “person.” She highlights the so called “battle” between an innocent life, the fetus, and the bodily rights of the mother. Within this argument, Judith outlines for us several situations which can provide people with a different outlook regarding abortion. Throughout Judith’s essay, she does not truly give a clear stance, but rather allows her readers to choose for themselves.
Pro-choice versus pro-life argues over the issue of what should be the right stance when dealing with the life of an unborn child. From the perspective of a person who is pro-choice, they believe that “individuals have unlimited autonomy with respect to their own reproductive systems, just as long as they don’t violate the independence of others.” Pro-choice also argues that the government should not have the right to decide whether a woman should exterminate her pregnancy or not. From their viewpoint, they believe that what should be legal in the eyes of the government is contraception use, celibacy, abstinence, and abortion for the first two trimesters of pregnancy. On the stance of pro-life, they argue that the government has a right
For over two centuries abortion has been an issue of controversy within the United States; furthermore, at the heart of this debate lies the standoff between advocates of pro-life and of pro-choice. Individuals who identify as pro-life strongly oppose abortion, believing it to be unjust and illegal. The argument pro-life advocates often put forth is that the fetus in question qualifies as a human being; therefore, to end its life prematurely is akin to murder. Pro-choice advocates, on the other hand, are strong supporters of placing the power of decision within the mother’s hands and allowing her to determine what is best for both her and her unborn child. (Hopely)
A variety of pro choice disadvantages mainly contain arguments with abortion. Abortion does in fact mean taking away a life of a child that has, “no say against it” (Head, 2015, para. 20). Yet, “pro choice protestors do not all agree with abortion” (Head, 2015, para. 6). Many individuals look from a baby’s perspective and shame pro choice. Yet, it may save marriages and save lives, while still providing understanding for the parents to sustain their feelings. Considering abortion
Manhunt: The 12-Day Chase for Lincoln’s Killer is a captivating novel that depicted the horrific assassination of Abraham Lincoln. James L. Swanson wrote this gripping tale and is an attorney and Lincoln scholar as well as the Edgar award-winning author of works such as Lincoln’s Assassins: Their trial and Execution, and Bloody Crimes: The Chase for Jefferson Davis and the death pageant for Lincoln’s corpse. Manhunt is a bestselling book that offered the reader insight to what motivated Booth to murder the president as well as the hunt for his murderer, John Wilkes Booth.
“Listen, honey, if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.” Gloria Steinem, a renowned feminist and abortion advocate (“Changing the World…”). Indeed, the truth is that women are marginalized material in a male-dominated society. Abortion is the right women should have accessibility towards, whether she wants to abort or not. In the past, the right to have an abortion was limited to those who could pay or had a supportive husband. Yet, today, women still do not have an equal right to have an abortion. As a feminist advocate, I am addressing why every woman in the United States should have the right to an abortion without being judged.
From his early life, one could imagine John Wilkes Booth was a simple young man, only looking to follow in his father’s footsteps as a master actor. However, one must look deep within John’s origins to truly understand the mindset of America’s most well-known assassin. He was born as the ninth son of Junius Booth, a nationally beloved actor and a domestically known drunkard (John Wilkes Booth 1). His fellow actors went as far as to describe him as insane (John Wilkes Booth 1838-1865). His mother, Mary Ann Holmes, was largely absent throughout John’s childhood. John and his nine siblings lived on a lavish ranch in Bel-Air, Maryland. Booth received an excellent education in acting, following in his father’s footsteps. Booth turned out to be an excellent actor, and in 1858, he became a member of Richmond Theatre. Clearly John didn’t value his family name, as he quickly made sure to establish the stage name of “J.B. Wilkes.” This early life was plagued by a political rift within his family. Booth was a native to Maryland, a border state that just barely sided with the union. Much of his family favored Lincoln’s stance, but Booth made it very clear he was stanchly against Lincoln’s initiative. However, Booth swore to his mother that he would not enl...
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.”
Thomson starts off her paper by explaining the general premises that a fetus is a person at conception and all persons have the right to life. One of the main premises that Thomson focuses on is the idea that a fetus’ right to life is greater than the mother’s use of her body. Although she believes these premises are arguable, she allows the premises to further her explanation of why abortion could be morally permissible. People would find it more understanding and more willing to help someone who is a relative.
Right now, thousands of women face a life changing decision, whether to follow through with a pregnancy or going through the process of abortion. An abortion is the process of removing an unborn offspring, known as a fetus, from the woman’s uterus in order to terminate the pregnancy. The confrontational topic is divided between the views of pro-life and pro-choice. Advocates for pro-life strongly believe that the unborn baby should be protected. Whereas, pro-choice supporters believe the decision of what happens to the unborn baby is completely a right of the woman. After analyzing the bioethical implications of abortion, through the legal verses illegal and choice verses life stances, one will perceive that laws should be governed in support of pro-choice across the nation.
The ethics of abortion is a topic that establishes arguments that attempt to argue if abortion is morally justified or not. Philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson wrote a pro- choice piece called “A Defense of Abortion.” In this paper, she presents various arguments that attempt to defend abortion by relating it to the woman carrying the fetus and her right in controlling her body. On the other side of the spectrum, philosopher Don Marquis wrote a pro- life paper called “Why Abortion Is Immoral.” Ultimately, Marquis argues that abortion is immoral with rare exceptions because it is resulting in the deprivation of the fetus’s valuable future. He supports his paper by creating the future-like-ours argument that compares the future of a fetus to the
Without access to legal abortion more women 's lives are placed in danger. In 1973, Roe Vs. Wade did rid of back alley abortions and gave the legal access to abortions’ but Before this law was passed, women had undergone back alley abortions that led to hemorrhaging and bleeding, or suffering from severe infections and death (Jacob 7). In addition, “Illegal abortions harmed women physically, increased the risks associated with future pregnancies, and even resulted in death” (“Abortion”). Furthermore, experts estimate that more than two hundred thousand women die each year in developing nations as a result of illegal abortions (“Abortion”). If legal abortion is not accessible, it will not make abortions altogether stop. Many of those opposed to abortion believe that lessening access to legal abortions will cause abortions to stop, but abortion has and will always exist, even if it is illegal; on the street, in back rooms, with coat hangers and under unsanitary conditions (Haugland). Women would turn to unsafe and untrained abortions if legal abortion is not attainable and will place her life in danger (“Abortion”). Consequently, 110,000 women die each year from such illegal abortions and six times as many suffer injury, according to World Health Organization. Today, because of the inaccessibility of safe, legal abortion, some women are resorting to illegal and self-abortions to terminate an unwanted pregnancy (Fried). The more women that are forced into pregnancy consequently add to illegal