Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 14 results found
The SLED Test is a simple argument against abortion. The pro-life view is that the unborn are human beings just like you and me. That’s why it’s wrong to kill them. Although many abortion-choice advocates agree the unborn are human, they deny they are valuable human beings. They think this distinction justifies killing the unborn. Often they use personhood language to express this view. They say the unborn might be human, but it’s not a person.
The public reaction to John Paul's recent encyclical on critical moral issues reveals the new rules of political discourse.
We are in the process of redefining what it is that has inherent worth in our culture from human beings just simply because they are humans that have worth, to states of existence having worth.
No one asked the important question: Is it wrong? Why not? Valentine's evening "20/20" on ABC did a short piece on the now well-known Dr. Death, Dr. Jack Kervorkian. He's been making headlines because he assists patients in committing suicide and he's invented a machine to help him out. He does the preliminary work, inserting the hypodermic needles and so forth, and then the patient pushes a button that allows a deadly drug to flow through the hypodermic and into the veins. Of course, this rapidly kills the patient.
There's a growing taboo infecting crisis pregnancy centers around the country. Pro-lifers are getting tight-lipped on abortion. Here's why even CPC's are shying away from speaking frankly about the moral crime of the century. The last few years have witnessed a stunning development in the pro-life movement. More and more crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) refuse to discuss abortion. A new wave of pro-life leaders insist that victory will not be gained in the court of public opinion if the debate centers principally on the morality of abortion.
If the California state statutes use the term "murder' to describe the killing of a fetus, then why can't pro-lifers use the same language? Certain kinds of objections come up every time violence is perpetrated against an abortion provider. Though pro-lifers are, almost to a person, against the bombing of abortion clinics, most use the term "murder" to describe what goes on there. The use of this terminology makes some observers wonder how pro-lifers can be against abortion violence when it allegedly stops murder.
Why has our discussion been about what is legal instead about what is moral? I suggest it's for one reason: self-interest . We can always adjust what is legal to fit what we want.
Think carefully about how you justify some moral actions because it could turn on you in another moral situation.
When it comes to ethics, we are often asked to focus on the person and ignore the morality of their actions. If he's a nice guy or is skilled, then the moral conduct of his sexual life is benign.
Me: You believe that euthanasia should be allowed because it eases the psychological or physical suffering of a person. Is that correct?Him: Yes. Me: I object because I believe that life is a gift from God and we must answer to Him for how we use our life. Therefore, we don't have the liberty to take our life; it's not ours to take.Him: You're inappropriately bringing religion into the issue because my views are otherwise.