Abortion Why Doctors Should have the Right to Refuse Essay

The First Amendment states, â€Å"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.† This amendment to our Constitution guarantees the citizens of the United States of America the right to live according to their belief system and values and not have the government interfering and dictating how they are to conduct themselves. This amendment grants us freedom to do as we please as long as it is in the confines of being legal. If the activity is illegal we, obviously, must face the consequences of our actions. Throughout the†¦show more content†¦(Kaveny, 2009) The Church Amendment was written as an answer to the Roe vs. Wade decision to protect the medical personnel’s conscience when one is opposed to abortion. It entitled those that objected to performing abortions because of moral and religious reasons the right to do so. In 1996, another amendment according to Kaveny was enacted to protect those that are in training to become physicians. This one is called the Coats-Snowe Amendment (1996), which â€Å"prohibits discrimination against medical training programs and medical students refusing to participate in induced abortions.† (Kaveny, 2009) Those that are of the Pro-Choice persuasion, tend to think that a woman’s right to an abortion supersedes the physician’s right to refuse performing abortions. My thought is that it is the patient’s responsibility to interview her doctor to find out if the doctor’s practices match up with her beliefs. As a woman, I know that we tend ask friends and co-workers who their obstetrician gynecologist is and we converse about what the doctor is like and what their practice is like. Also, if the doctor is practicing in a hospital that is affiliated with a religious persuasion, it is quite obvious what the stand of the facility will be because most religious affiliated hospitals are considered to be pro-life. This patient should go to a public hospital because the chances of finding a doctor willing toShow MoreRelatedEssay The Abortion Arguments of Cider House Rules1105 Words   |  5 PagesThe Abortion Arguments of Cider House Rules I am writing this essay on a Saturday evening, not with any real contemplation, or even planning. I am writing this because I was just minutes ago watching the movie Cider House Rules. I wont go into the plot of the movie, but, to explain my motivation for writing this, I will simply describe one portion of the movie. The scene at issue in my mind right now is one where a fourteen-year-old girl comes to the orphanage which is the setting for partRead MoreDon Marquis V.S. Judith Jarvis Thomson. Two Abortion Arguments.1474 Words   |  6 PagesJudith Jarvis Thomson Two abortion arguments Judith Jarvis Thomson and Don Marquis both have different views on abortion. Thomson believes that in some cases, abortion is morally permissible, due to the life of the mother. Marquis believes that abortion is almost always morally impermissible, except in extreme circumstances, because the fetus has a future life. I will simply evaluate each of the authors reasoning’s that defend their belief, and give my argument for why I believe Judith Thomson’sRead MoreLife Of The Mother By William Shakespeare1360 Words   |  6 Pageslife of the mother. Marquis believes that abortion is almost always morally impermissible, except in extreme circumstances, because the fetus has a future life. I will simply evaluate each of the authors reasonings that defend their belief, and give my argument for why I believe Don Marquis’ essay is more convincing. (SUMMARY DEFENSE OF ABORTION) Thompson begins by stating â€Å" a fetus is a person and that killing a person is, in essence, murder, and thus morally wrong.† Thompson uses many analogiesRead MoreEssay about Abortion - Views from Both Sides717 Words   |  3 PagesAbortion - Views from Both Sides Abortion is the ending of pregnancy before birth and is morally wrong. An abortion results in the death of an embryo or a fetus. Abortion destroys the lives of helpless, innocent children and is illegal in many countries. By aborting these unborn infants, humans are hurting themselves; they are not allowing themselves to meet these new identities and unique personalities. Abortion is very simply wrong. Everyone is raised knowing the difference between right andRead MoreAre Minors Intelligent Enough For Understand The Consequences Of Not Getting Cancer Treatment?1137 Words   |  5 Pagesthought that patients have the right to refuse treatments. Depending on age, this thought is true. For instance, the refusal of an adult will always be heard. But if a teenager refuses cancer treatment, their decision will probably go unheard. Teenagers are depicted in society as being hormonal and make many bad decisions. This stereotype is not limited only to the public but also in the medical fi eld. In order to understand the question asked earlier in this paper, doctors are using tactics likeRead MoreChristians Views on Abortion and Euthanasia Essays765 Words   |  4 PagesChristians Views on Abortion and Euthanasia Abortion is a major issue to Christians each denomination has its own teachings on abortion. Abortion is to end a pregnancy deliberately because the child is not wanted for some reason. Thou shall not kill. (Exodus 20:13). There are different views on abortion, some people believe that abortion is wrong because the foetus is still alive, but others believe that abortion is needed for instance if the mothers life was inRead MoreShould Abortion Be Legal Today?1326 Words   |  6 PagesWomen have fought for centuries for equality amongst everyone, no matter what color or race. Women today are still struggling for complete equality in many ways such as abortion. â€Å"A woman s right to have an abortion is necessary to ensure full and free participation in society†(Anderson online). A woman has the right to control her reproductive system in privacy, if that right was denied, America, as a society, would not truly be free. In order to have this free society, women’s rights need to beRead MoreEssay about The Ethical Roles of the Government in Medical Practice1579 Words   |  7 Pagespertains to the rights of medical practice are a slippery slope. One may argue â€Å"How can the government make decisions based solely upon the best interest of itself†. With this being focused mostly in regards to it’s stances on abortion and the rights of doctors to ma ke ethical and moral decisions on whether or not they want to practice abortions in their clinic. While bearing in mind ethical values relating to medical practices, the role of conscience is extremely substantial. â€Å"Abortion was legalizedRead More Abortion Essay1038 Words   |  5 Pages Abortion is one of the most controversial issues in America today. Abortion is the ending of pregnancy before birth. There are approximately 1.5 million abortions every year in this country. Abortion was made legal in the 1970s. However, pro-life activists argue that it is murder. Should the government have the legal power to take away a woman\\s right to make decisions regarding her own body? An abortion results in the death of an embryo or a fetus. Abortion destroys the lives of helpless, innocentRead MoreThe Philosophical Aspects Of The Abortion Debate1672 Words   |  7 Pagesthe abortion debate form two logical arguments, which oppose and support abortion. These arguments are based on what is ethical and the rights of an individual. The view that abortion should be illegal rest on the moral right of the life of a human being at or near conception killing an embryo is unjust since it violates the right to life (Hershenov 129). Therefore, the law should prohibit violation of the right to life. The view that abortion should be legal, generally argues that women have the

President Jackson Guardian of the Constitution Free Essays

With good intention of building a nation based on principles of freedom, opportunity, and equality, the United States early leaders had many struggles in doing so. A utopia world can be imagined and planned out, but tribulations will always occur, making a utopia impossible to be created. The Jacksonian Democrats viewed themselves as the guardians of the Constitution, individual liberty, and equal opportunity, but then again, tribulations are inevitable. We will write a custom essay sample on President Jackson Guardian of the Constitution or any similar topic only for you Order Now Jacksonian Democrats took on the duty of defending the country from mostly outside powers, but also from problems that take place in the country. The Declaration gives the American man many rights, which can be, and will be abused. Document A explains how the Jacksonian’s recognized this, and again, with good intent, they have assigned themselves as an organized party, with leaders of high meaning to protect any misuse of the said freedoms in the Declaration. President Jackson takes a commanding step in his faith of defending the country in his veto of the United States Bank re-charter showed in Document B. He gives a good argument for why the Bank is disrupting and harmful to the United States, and his veto is because he is trying to protect the United States. Document D shows how the United States was already very prospering, and the document really emphasizes the amazement of individual liberty. Never before, anywhere else in the modernized world was the a working democracy, but the United States seemed to be a very able country even with individual liberty. The writer claims she was â€Å"painfully amazed† when the question was up-rose of whether the people are encouraged to govern themselves, she was surprised because it looked as if it was a great environment. Document E tells of how a riot broke out in Philadelphia because of the issue of slavery, and black discrimination. This is a struggle that will always haunt those in power. The issue of slavery completely goes against the Democrat belief of individual liberty. The very unmoral view of the situation will claim that blacks are not considered humans, but property. Document E shows that South Carolina moves to suppress the non-slave states’ publishing and printing. Document G shows how the United States took the rights of the Indians in the Indian Removal Act, which led to the Trail of Tears. The Indians were forced out of their living space, and had their rights abused. In Andrew Jackson’s veto explained in Document B, it shows how he is defending the equal opportunity of the United States. He says, â€Å"It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of governments to their selfish purposes. † He is defending the common man and in doing so, he is also defending the Constitution. Equal Opportunity is also shown in Document F. South Carolina accepts the views of the non-slave states, but they realize the influence of of the non-slave states may be seen in the slave states, so they set restrictions on what they can print and publish in newspapers and pamphlets. They do not want the non-slave states to interrupt with their potential. The Jacksonian Democrats claimed to be defenders of the United States. They defended the Constitution, individual rights, and equal opportunity the best they could. But arguments and problems are always on the horizon, and sometimes defending them can turn someones actions on what they previously claimed their beliefs. For this, the Jacksonian Democrats were continuously challenged on their position on different subjects. How to cite President Jackson Guardian of the Constitution, Papers

Laws Of War Essay Example For Students

Laws Of War Essay The term laws of war refers to the rules governing the actual conduct of armed conflict. This idea that there actually exists rules that govern war is a difficult concept to understand. The simple act of war in and of itself seems to be in violation of an almost universal law prohibiting one human being from killing another. But during times of war murder of the enemy is allowed, which leads one to the question, if murder is permissible then what possible laws of war could there be? The answer to this question can be found in the Charter established at the International Military Tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo:Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the co untry where perpetrated. Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.1 The above excerpt comes form the Charter of the Tribunal Article 6 section C, which makes it quite clear that in general the laws of war are there to protect innocent civilians before and during war. It seems to be a fair idea to have such rules governing armed conflictin order to protect the civilians in the general location of such aconflict. But, when the conflict is over, and if war crimes have been committed, how then are criminals of war brought to justice? TheInternational Military Tribunals held after World War II in Nuremberg on 20 November 1945 and in Tokyo on 3 May 1946 are excellent examples of how such crimes of war are dealt with. (Roberts and Guelff 153-54) But, rather than elaborate on exact details of the Tribunals of Nuremberg and Tokyo a more important matter must be dealt with. What happens when alleged criminals of war are unable to be apprehended and justly tried? Are they forgotten about, or are they sought after such as other criminals are in order to serve justice? What happens if these alleged violators are found residing somewhere other than where their pursuers want to bring them to justice? How does one go about legally obtaining the custody of one su ch suspect? Some of the answers to these questions can be found in an analysis of how Israel went about obtaining the custody of individuals that it thought to be guilty of Nazi War Crimes. Not only will one find some of the answers to the previously stated questions, but also one will gain an understandingof one facet of international law and how it works. Two cases in specific will be dealt with here. First, the extradition of Adolf Eichmann from Argentina, and second, the extradition of John Demjanjuk from the United States of America. These cases demonstrate two very different ways that Israel went about obtaining the custody of these alleged criminals. The cases also expose the intricacy of International Law in matters of extradition. But, before we begin to examine each of these cases we must first establish Israels right to judicial processing of alleged Nazi war criminals. To understand the complications involved in Israel placing suspectedNazi war criminals on trial, lets review the history of Israels situation. During World War II the Nazis were persecuting Jews in their concentration camps. At this time the state of Israel did not exist. The ending of the war meant the ending of the persecution, and when the other countries discovered what the Nazis had done Military Tribunals quickly followed. Some of the accused war criminals were tried and sentenced, but others managed to escape judgement and thus became fugitives running from international law. Israel became a state, and thus, some of the Jews that survived the concentration camps moved to the state largely populated by people of Jewish ancestry. Israel felt a moral commitment because of its large Jewish population and set about searching for the fugitive Nazi war criminals. The situation just described is only a basic overview of whathappened. The state of Israel views itself as the nation with the greatest moral jurisdiction for the trial of Nazi war criminals, and other states around the Globe agree with Israels claim. (Lubet and Reed 1) Former Israeli Attorney General Gideon Hausner was interested in confirming Israel as the place for bringing to justice all those suspected of genocide of Jews. Hausner sought to confirm Israels status by proposing to the United States that they extradite Bishop Valerian Trifa to Israel for trial as a war criminal. Israel was reluctant to support Hausners proposal, which resulted in delaying the extradition process and thus gave Trifa the time needed to find a country willing to give him residency. Portugal granted Trifa residency and thus Hausners proposal was in vain. Israel, sometime after losing their opportunity of obtaining Trifa,decided that Hausners idea of establishing Israel as the place to bring Nazi war criminals to trial was a good one, which lead them to seek the extradition of John Demjanjuk from the United States. The Wall Street Journal reported:Israels request for the extradition of a suspected Nazi war criminal living in the U.S. . . appears to be a test case that could determine whether Israel pursues other suspects . . . The decision to seek the extradition of Mr. Demjanjuk follows months of negotiations between U.S. and Israel officials about specific cases and the broader question of whether Israel wanted to go through with extraditions requests . . . Gideon Hausner, who prosecuted Eichmann, said Israels decision to ask the U.S. to extradite Nazis for trial is an important step. This creates the opportunity for at least tacit admission of Israels special position with regard to crimes against Jews anywhere in the world, he sa ys.2After much negotiations the United States arrested Demjanjuk in November of 1983. On April 15, 1985 United States District Judge Frank Battisti ruled in favor of Demjanjuks extradition. After the Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed Battistis ruling and the Supreme Court denied Demjanjuks petition for certiorari, Demjanjuk arrived in Israel on February 27, 1986. (Lubet and Reed 3) It would appear, from what has been presented, that the extradition process is simple. But this conclusion is not correct because there are a few issues that make extradition problematic. One such issue that complicates the process of extradition is that of identification and proof. Leading Nazi war criminals such as Adolf Eichmann and Klaus Barbieoffer no real dispute in the matter of identification, but war criminals that were not so prominent leave room to question whether they truly are who they are accused of being. The type of criminal cases that most of us are familiar with are those that attempt to prove whether a defendant committed a particular act or acts. Extradition cases involve two distinct questions:1) The prosecution must prove that the defendant is actually the personsought by the requesting country. The Giver EssayArgentina went on further to argue that Israels note expressing their regret in the matter of Eichmanns removal can be viewed as an apology, which constitutes an admission of guilt. The phrasing of the note of regret sent by Israel is embedded clearly with conditional terms, which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to derive an admission of guilt from it. At no time in the note does Israel praise or approve the volunteer group actions, and neither does Israel try to justify what was done. If anything can clearly be derived from the note it is that Israel in fact does regret the actions of the volunteer group, and possibly even condemns their behavior. But, Argentinas claim that the note is an admission of guilt is hardly an argument worth pursuing. Argentinas strongest argument against the abduction of Eichmann is that Israel chose to detain Eichmann after he had been captured. Argentina claimed that even though the abduction of Eichmann was an act committed by private citizens, the Israeli Governments decision to detain and try Eichmann made them an accessory. This point is Argentinas strongest argument because it is known that the jurisdiction of the court reaches only as far as the borders of the state of which it is in. If the court had no jurisdiction in the nation of the original seizure, then by what right does that court have to detain and try the accused? The only problem with Argentinas final argument on the Eichmann abduction is that proof of forcible seizure or arrest must be presented. Since the abductors were acting of their own free will it is doubtful that they arrested Eichmann in the name of Israel. It is, however, quite possible that the abductors used some force in the removal of Eichmann, but again, use of force must be proved to give validity to Argentinas final argument. Argentina filed a complaint with the United Nations Security Council under Article 33 claiming that Israel violated international law, which created an atmosphere of insecurity and distrust jeopardizing the preservation of international peace. (Silving 312) After the presentation of arguments and debates before the Security Council the follow declarations were made:violation of the sovereignty of a Member State is incompatible with the Charter of the United Nations; repetition of acts such as that giving rise to this situation would involve a breach of the principles upon which international order is founded creating an atmosphere of insecurity and distrust incompatible with the preservation of peace. The adjudicative part of the resolution. 1. Declares that acts such as that under considerations, which affect the sovereignty of a Member State and therefore cause international friction, may, if repeated, endanger international peace and security;2. Requests the Government of Israel to make appropriate reparation inaccordance with the Charter of the United Nations and rules ofinternational law.12 The important part of the resolutions that the United Nations reached is the phrase if repeated. It is almost as if the United Nations said, this time we will let the infringement go, but next we will take action. Considering the unique character of the crimes attributed to Eichmann, and since such crimes are, for the most part, universally condemned, Israels breach of international law seems to have been tolerated. It is quite possible that had the person who was removed been someone other than Eichmann the result of the United Nations Security Council would have been much different. The two cases of extradition expose the complexities of international law. In the case of Demjanjuk, Israel went about the extradition process in the correct manner, which resulted in the issues of identification and probable cause, requirement of criminality, extraterritoriality, and extratemporality. When Israel went about obtaining Adolf Eichmann the issues dealt with were ones resulting from the method of Eichmanns apprehension. Eichmanns removal from Argentina brought to light the issue of violation of a countrys sovereignty. In both cases because the accused were being charged with Nazi war crimes, specifically genocide, there cases seem to get a little leeway and are not dealt with as extremely as other cases might be. Nevertheless, their cases demonstrate how one goes about bringing to justice those charged with violating the laws of war. FOOTNOTES1 Roberts, Adam, and Richard Guelff, ed. Documents of the Laws ofWar. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982.) 155. 2 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. Extradition of Nazis fromthe United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues inTransnational Criminal Law. Stanford Journal ofInternational Law. 23 (1986): 3. 3 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. Extradition of Nazis fromthe United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues inTransnational Criminal Law. Stanford Journal ofInternational Law. 23 (1986): 15. 4 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. Extradition of Nazis fromthe United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues inTransnational Criminal Law. Stanford Journal ofInternational Law. 23 (1986): 15. 5 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. Extradition of Nazis fromthe United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues inTransnational Criminal Law. Stanford Journal ofInternational Law. 23 (1986): 18. 6 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. Extradition of Nazis fromthe United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues inTransnational Criminal Law. Stanford Journal ofInternational Law. 23 (1986): 18. 7 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. Extradition of Nazis fromthe United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues inTransnational Criminal Law. Stanford Journal ofInternational Law. 23 (1986): 20. 8 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. Extradition of Nazis fromthe United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues inTransnational Criminal Law. Stanford Journal ofInternational Law. 23 (1986): 23. 9 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. Extradition of Nazis fromthe United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues inTransnational Criminal Law. Stanford Journal ofInternational Law. 23 (1986): 23. 10 Silving, Helen. In Re Eichmann: A Dilemma of Law and MoralityThe American Journal of International Law 55 (1961):311. 11 Silving, Helen. In Re Eichmann: A Dilemma of Law and MoralityThe American Journal of International Law 55 (1961):318. 12 Silving, Helen. In Re Eichmann: A Dilemma of Law and MoralityThe American Journal of International Law 55 (1961):313. Political Issues Essays