Waiting for answer This question has not been answered yet. You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
I will pay for the following article Abortion: Should it be Illegal, and Should it be Considered as Genocide. The work is to be 6 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a referen
I will pay for the following article Abortion: Should it be Illegal, and Should it be Considered as Genocide. The work is to be 6 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page. The debate itself steals time away from other, more important issues including but not limited to healthcare, education, and the environment. It is also unfortunate that the debate will never be settled until more fundamental theoretical disagreements are identified, discussed, and settled upon. Liberals and conservatives, by arguing from completely different points-of-view, simply talk past each other, unable to recognize the other’s position or what exactly it entails, resulting in a stagnation where the debate cannot move forward. The failure to understand these dynamics in the debate emerges not because one side is right and the other refuses to think the correct way. but because both cannot adequately justify the theoretical baggage their claims about abortion carry. Conservatives cannot justify why we should believe what the Bible says and liberals cannot justify the ethical system known as utilitarianism. In what follows, we will consider why (independent of any religious teaching) abortion is a morally condemnable act—producing what is essentially the murder of human life, and therefore ought to be subject to legal restraint.
First, we need to recognize why abortion is ethically wrong. Pro-choice advocates try to distinguish between “human in the moral sense” and “human in the generic sense” (Warren). The “moral” sense of being human is that which is a human person, according to Warren, and abortion applies only to those beings that are no instances of this particular category. This makes it excusable to end the life of a human being which is only so in the “genetic” sense. However, this rests on the assumption that we can metaphysically separate the properties of single beings into dichotomous categories like those that Warren proposes. We cannot because, for a human being, having a certain set of biological properties is a necessary condition of having a certain set of moral qualities. Warren says, however, that it is not a sufficient condition. . .