QUESTION
Annotated Bibliography: Week 5 Course Project Milestone
Review all chapters of the textbook
Lesson
5 scholarly sources are required (This includes the source from Week 3 Proposal.)
Instructions
Make an annotated bibliography of 5 academic scholarly sources (including your source from Week 3). Include the following items:
Your paper’s introduction and thesis (to the best extent as you know it at this time)
Specifics about the publication
Annotation (a detailed reading of the source) (a detailed reading of the source)
The following should be included in the annotation section:
Key points should be summarized and key terms should be identified (using quotation marks, and citing a page in parentheses).
Describe the debates or “issues” raised by the articles.
Give reasons for your agreement or disagreement.
Find one or two quotations to include in your final research project.
Consider how this article is important to you and how it has helped you focus your understanding.
Publication Example
APA Citation
Requirements for Writing (APA format)
Annotation length: 1-2 paragraphs
margins of one inch
double spacing
Times New Roman 12-point font
The title page
ANSWER
The Abortion Debate
Introduction
The disagreement over when life begins is at the heart of much abortion debate. According to the pro-life movement, life begins at conception, and thus abortion is a deprivation of life, and thus immoral and unethical. The pro-choice movement, on the other hand, contends that life begins at conception and that abortion is not a deprivation of life. Women have the right to choose when to have children based on their religious and moral beliefs. Thus, the pro-choice movement bases the decision to abort or not on individual morality. However, as relativism’s detractors argued, if morality is left to one’s preferences, there is no way to distinguish between good and bad. Abortion is unethical and results in the deprivation of life, according to those who believe that morality cannot be left to individual preferences.
C. Borgmann and C. Weiss (2003). A moral defense of abortion beyond apocalypse and apology. Sexual and reproductive health perspectives, 35(1), pp. 40-43.
Borgmann and Weiss (2003) defend the right to abortion solely on moral grounds in this article. According to the articles, individuals and organizations opposed to abortion are on a mission to undermine women’s “equality,” “bodily integrity,” and “autonomy.” Women have the right to choose abortion and live with the consequences, and “no one else, least of all the government, should decide whether she will use her body to bring new life into the world” (p. 42). In terms of equality, the article asserts that [cmppp restricted] without the right to abortion, women are deprived of the ability to participate equally in economic, social, and political life. Furthermore, the law considers the human body to be inviolable, so women are protected from bodily invasion and thus have the right to control their bodies.
I agree that women have a right to their own bodies, so no woman should be forced to become pregnant. Women, on the other hand, do not have the right to become pregnant or the right to terminate a pregnancy. As a result, I would have the right to plagiarize the work of others while avoiding the consequences. One cannot have a right to avoid the consequences of another right unless those consequences can be avoided naturally. This article has expanded on the topic of individual moral preferences. It has helped me better understand the idea that deciding what is universally right or wrong is impossible when morality is left to individual preferences.
M. N. Jali (2001). Abortion from a philosophical standpoint. Curationis, vol. 24(4), pp. 25-31.
According to Jali (2001), the debate between pro-life and pro-choice groups is about two competing principles, including “value of life” and “self-determination.” While the pro-life movement emphasizes the humanity of the fetus, the pro-choice movement emphasizes women’s right to self-determination. Jali (2001) explains that life does not begin at conception or at birth, but rather somewhere in between, by drawing on several theoretical perspectives such as “genetic viewpoint” and “developmental viewpoint.” While it is difficult to pinpoint when a fetus acquires moral rights, “it is true that the genetic basis of an individual person is established at conception, but some development must occur before the conceptus can be called human” (p. 30). As a result, the fact that a fetus is a potential person is a clear reason not to destroy it. However, rather than relying solely on the “potential person” basis, it is also important to consider the intention and motive behind one’s decision to abort.
I agree with this argument and believe that, while life does not begin at conception, abortion after some level of development is morally wrong. Furthermore, abortion becomes wrong when the basis, intention, and motive for abortion are based on the right to one’s body rather than medical issues. This article has been helpful in elaborating on the debate over when life begins. It brings this debate to a close by presenting a new perspective that life begins long after conception but before birth.
M. J. Johnstone (2008). The politicization of conscience and abortion 16(6), 21. Australian Nursing and Midwifery Journal.
According to Johnstone (2008), while the abortion debate is about the right of the woman versus the right of the unborn, the ethics of abortion is about the “right attitude to parenthood and family relationships” (p. 21). People rarely consider the view that abortion is justifiable based on “decency,” “responsible and respectful creation,” and “stewardship.” A child requires decency in order to live a normal life. “Stewardship” refers to the act of caring for something, in this case a child, and “responsible and respectful creation” refers to the act of being responsible and respectful in childbearing (p. 21). Thus, if a woman’s circumstances prevent her from observing decency. When it comes to stewardship or responsible and respectful creation, abortion is justifiable. If abortion is a conscious choice, criminalizing it is an injustice to men and women who uphold the principles of citizenship and responsible parenthood.
This article introduces the aspect of circumstances that is agreeable when such circumstances endanger the woman’s life. Abortion cannot be used to further decency, stewardship, or responsible creation in today’s world because there are many other solutions to responsible parenthood, such as family planning. As a result, I disagree with Johnstone (2008) on the grounds that there are more morally justifiable ways of being a responsible parent.
R. Lopez (2012). Abortion Viewpoints: Pro-Choice, Pro-Life, and What Lies in Between 511-517 in European Journal of Social Sciences.
Lopez (2012) presents pro-choice and pro-life arguments and proposes a new argument that falls somewhere in the middle. The paper discusses traditional views on abortion, church views, philosophical considerations, and the “moderate perspective.” According to the moderate viewpoint, abortion is justified if the “pregnant woman was a victim of rape or incest or the pregnancy is life-threatening to the woman” (p. 516).
I agree with supporters of the moderate viewpoint that abortion is justified when the mother’s life is endangered or when the mother did not choose to become pregnant. This is based on the assumption that women cannot have the right to become pregnant while also having the right to abort.
D. Marquis (2007). An argument against abortion. Anthology of ethical theory, 439-450.
According to Marguis (2007), abortion is morally wrong except in extreme cases such as rape or when the mother’s life is in danger. This is based on the assumptions that fetuses are alive and human, and thus have a right to life, but women have a right to their bodies as well, but “the right to life overrides the right of a woman to control her own body” (p. 47), making abortion illegal. Killing takes away all of the value of a person’s future, making it the worst crime. Based on the belief that fetuses are alive, abortion deprives fetuses of all future value, making abortion wrong.
This article is controversial in that, while it accepts both sides of the abortion debate, it does not reach a consensus on which side is correct. By arguing that the right to life trumps the right to own one’s body, one right is prioritized over the other. I agree with this author on the basis that if one person’s right deprives another person of their right, it is no longer a right. Abortion is wrong when the woman’s right to control her body deprives the fetus of the right to life. A woman cannot have the right to conceive while also having the right to abort. There are more humane ways of controlling one’s body such as avoiding pregnancy through family planning.