Textbook: review all chapters
Lesson
Minimum of 5 scholarly sources (This includes the source from Week 3 Proposal.)
Instructions
Create a complete annotated bibliography for 5 academic scholarly sources (including your source from Week 3). Include the following:

Introduction and thesis for your paper (to the best extent as you know it at this time)
Publication details
Annotation (a detailed reading of the source)
The annotation section should include the following:

Summarize key points and identify key terms (using quotation marks, and citing a page in parentheses).
Describe the controversies or “problems” raised by the articles.
State whether you agree or disagree and give reasons.
Locate one or two quotations to be used in the final research project.
Evaluate the ways in which this article is important and has helped you focus your understanding.
Example Publication
APA Reference

Writing Requirements (APA format)
Length: 1-2 paragraphs per annotation
1-inch margins
Double spaced
12-point Times New Roman font
Title page

SOLUTION

Abortion Controversy

Introduction

Much debate about abortion lies in the disagreement about when life begins. The pro-life group argues that life begins at conception and thus abortion is a deprivation of life and thus immoral and unethical. On the other hand, the pro-choice group argues that life begins at birth and thus abortion is not a deprivation of life. Based on this, women have a right to decide when to have children based on their own religious and moral beliefs. The pro-choice group thus places the decision to abort or not on individual morality. However, as critics of relativism argued, if morality is left to one’s preferences, then there is no way to differentiate between good and bad. Holding that morality cannot be left to the preferences of individuals, abortion is unethical and results in deprivation of life.

Borgmann, C., & Weiss, C. (2003). Beyond apocalypse and apology: A moral defence of abortion. Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health, 35(1), 40-43.

In this article, Borgmann & Weiss (2003) defends the right to abortion purely on the basis of morality. The articles argue that individuals and organization opposing abortion are on a mission to undermine the “equality” “bodily integrity” and “autonomy” of women. Women have a right to make their own decision on abortion and live with the consequences and “No one else and certainly not the government should decide whether she will use her body to bring new life into the world” (p. 42). On equality, the article holds that [cmppp_restricted] without the right to abort, women are deprived the ability to participate equally in economic, social and political life. Furthermore, the law treats the human body as inviolable, and thus women are protected from bodily invasion and thus ought to have control over their bodies.

I agree that women have a right to their own body, which is why no woman can be forced to get pregnant. However, women cannot have the right get pregnant and the right to terminate the pregnancy. Consequently, it would mean that I have a right to plagiarize the work of others and the right to evade the consequences. One cannot have a right to evade the consequences resulting from another right unless such consequences can be naturally evaded. This article has elaborated on the issue of individual preferences on morality. It has helped me better understand the idea that when morality is left to individual preferences, deciding on what is universally right or wrong is impossible.

Jali, M. N. (2001). Abortion-a philosophical perspective. Curationis, 24(4), 25-31.

Jali (2001) recognizes that in the debate between pro-life and pro-choice groups, the debate is about two conflicting principles, including “value of life” and “self-determination”. While pro-life group places their emphasis on the humanity of the fetus, the pro-choice group emphasize the right of women to self-determination. By drawing from several theoretical perspectives such as “genetic viewpoint” and “developmental viewpoint”, Jali (2001) elucidates neither does life begin at conception nor does it start at birth rather somewhere in between. While it is hard to specify when a fetus becomes a person to bear moral rights, “it is true that the genetic basis of an individual person is established at conception, but some development has to take place before the conceptus can be called human” (p. 30). Thus, the fact that a fetus is a potential person is a clear-cut reason for not destroying it. However, it is also important to consider the intention and motive behind one’s decision to abort rather than purely relying on the “potential person” basis.

I concur with this argument and hold that while life does not begin at conception, aborting when some development has occurred is morally wrong. Furthermore, when the basis, intention and the motive of aborting are based on the right to one’s body as opposed to medical issues, then abortion becomes wrong. This article has been instrumental in elaborating g re on the debate about when life begins. It draws a consensus in this debate by providing a new view that life begins way after conception but before birth.

Johnstone, M. J. (2008). Abortion and the politicisation of conscience. Australian Nursing and Midwifery Journal, 16(6), 21.

Johnstone (2008) argue that while the debate about abortion is about the right of the woman versus the right of the unborn, the ethics of aborting is not about rights rather on the “right attitude to parenthood and family relationships” (p. 21). People fail to consider the view that abortion is justifiable based on “decency”, “responsible and respectful creation” as well as “stewardship” is considered rarely. Decency are the things a child require to lead a standard life. “Stewardship” is the act of taking care of something, in this case, a child and “responsible and respectful creation” is the act of being responsible and respectful in the bearing of children (p. 21). Thus, if the circumstances of a woman cannot allow her to observe decency. Stewardship or responsible and respectful creation, then abortion is justifiable. If abortion is a matter of consciousness, criminalizing abortion is an injustice to men and women who uphold the principles of citizenry and responsible parenthood.

This article introduces the aspect of circumstances which is agreeable when such circumstances threaten the life of the woman. In the current world, there many other solutions to responsible parenthood such as family planning and thus, abortion cannot be used as a way to further decency, stewardship and responsible creation.  I thus disagree with Johnstone (2008) on the basis that there are more morally justifiable ways of responsible parenthood.

Lopez, R. (2012). Perspectives on Abortion: Pro-Choice, Pro-Life, and What Lies in between. European Journal of Social Sciences, 27(4), 511-517.

Lopez (2012) presents the arguments of pro-choice and pro-life arguments and suggests a new argument that lies in between. The paper presents the traditional views on abortion, the views of the church, philosophical considerations and the “moderate perspective”. The moderate perspective argues that abortion is justifiable if the “pregnant woman was victim of rape or incest or the pregnancy is life-threatening to the woman” (p. 516).

I agree with supporters of the moderate perspective that abortion is justifiable if it poses a threat to the life of the mother or when it was not the choice of the mother to get pregnant. This is based on the premise that women cannot have the right to get pregnant and the right to abort.

Marquis, D. (2007). An argument that abortion is wrong. Ethical theory: An anthology, 439-450.

Marguis (2007) holds that abortion is seriously wrong except in some instances such as rape or when the life of the mother is at risk. This is based on the premises that fetuses are alive and human and thus have a right to life, but again, women have a right to their body but “the right to life overrides the right of a woman to control her own body” (p. 47) thus making abortion wrong. The aspect of killing deprives one all of the value of their future which makes killing the worst crime. Based on the view that fetuses are alive, then abortion deprives fetuses all of value of their future which makes abortion wrong.

This article is controversial in that while it accepts the arguments of both groups in the abortion debate, it draws a consensus on which group is more right than the other. By arguing that the right to life dominates the right to owns body, it is placing more value on one right that the other. I concur with this author on the basis that if the right of an individual deprives another individual their right, then it is no longer a right. When the woman’s right to control her body deprives the fetus a right to life, then abortion is wrong. A woman cannot have a right to conceive and still have a right to abort. There are more humane ways of controlling one’s body such as avoiding pregnancy through family planning.

References

Borgmann, C., & Weiss, C. (2003). Beyond apocalypse and apology: A moral defence of abortion. Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health, 35(1), 40-43.

Jali, M. N. (2001). Abortion-a philosophical perspective. Curationis, 24(4), 25-31.

Johnstone, M. J. (2008). Abortion and the politicisation of conscience. Australian Nursing and Midwifery Journal, 16(6), 21.

Lopez, R. (2012). Perspectives on Abortion: Pro-Choice, Pro-Life, and What Lies in between. European Journal of Social Sciences, 27(4), 511-517.

Marquis, D. (2007). An argument that abortion is wrong. Ethical theory: An anthology, 439-450. [/cmppp_restricted]