Currently, human beings deal with a range of serious problems which create heated debates among both caring and indifferent people. Any question involves a necessity to judge; thus, judgmental predispositions mainly depend on stereotypical markers which, in turn, prescribe a certain viewpoint. Moreover, difficult issues concerning human wrongful conceptions lead to standard reactions that seem to be explained by particular factors discussed by several scientists. Among others, the so-called "yuk" factor is aimed at subconscious differentiation between the disgusting and the immoral (Fearn, 1998). Therefore, human nature normally includes a mixture of worries about safety, though ethical concerns may seem to become the question of morality. This paper will pertain to the following disputable ethical dilemmas: abortions and AIDS.
Concerning the issues around the subject of abortion, the conception of moral permissibility is still ambiguous. Undoubtedly, every human has a right to live; thus, every fetus has its arguments for having the same right. David Boonin, in his investigations, explains the controversy of this question proving his perspective that abortion can still be shown to be morally permissible on the critic of abortion's own terms (Boonin, 2003). Nevertheless, he takes into account the arguments that give an embryo a right to life which are based on the golden rule and, of course, on the majority of feminist-directed theories (Boonin, 2003). Besides, the abortion dilemma is the key concept in ethical teachings in the spheres of law and medicine.
According to statistics, abortion remains a huge ethical dilemma and controversial issue for physicians. Doctors are considered to be passionate about this problem as much as the rest of the country's citizens. Everyone's point of view is determined by a complex of various factors including religious, political, scientific, and medical convictions. Statistically, 25 percent of physicians regard abortion to be legal under any circumstances, 51 percent say it should be legal only under certain circumstances. That 25 percent is a far cry from the 69 percent of physicians who voted for unequivocal legality (Pennachio, 2002).
A majority of doctors are opposed to performing abortions in practice considering it to be the terrible, irrefutable reality in killing babies for the convenience of the parents (Pennachio, 2002). Though the procedure is legal, it does not necessarily mean the legality of the moral. Intentions of pro-life representatives involve saving lives not killing people. Besides, medicine does not require people to kill or to die; it is meant to help them with unavoidable health problems, though not to impose certain ethical values. Whether abortions should be legal depends on a particular case. Most medical workers consider that it has to be legal but very rare and happening under particular circumstances. Nonetheless, they try to avoid philosophical and ethical issues taking into consideration a mixture of scientifically proven standards and safeguards. Besides, the physician's duty is to explain all options to the patient who afterwards should make a decision without doctor's interference.
Surely, abortion is a very unpleasant topic both for women and men who unfortunately face this ethical dilemma and have to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy or not. Some consider it to be though legal but morally wrong, while others do not accept a fetus as a living being thus presenting the non-religious viewpoint. Nevertheless, there are very rare occasions when the best thing to do is to perform an abortion. Those concern genetic complications, medical indications, or rapes; although the latter is not necessarily an excuse. Therefore, population has a mixed opinion on the issue of abortion, thus avoiding it because of its fairly controversial, religious, political, and personal nature.
The dilemma of abortion is ethicality connected to the issue of AIDS to some extent. There are cases of performing abortions exactly because of a mother's HIV positive status. The retrovirus HIV that possibly leads to AIDS is regarded to have crossed to humans from monkey species, thus laying foundation for several theories and principles of ethics. Ethics deals with determination of what is right and what is wrong, but it also demonstrates the complexity of these values presented in ethical models. Moreover, particular norms, standards, values, and principles, existing in a certain community, are based on stereotypical convictions. Nevertheless, there are various individual beliefs, life experiences, and cultural backgrounds that influence human's perspectives and therefore there is no unequivocal conclusion in this controversial ethical dilemma.
Concerning HIV infection, discrimination and outgroup labelling emerge as an obvious hazard. HIV was often described in terms of cross border travel in the early accounts and conceptualized as an imported problem (Haour-Knipe Rector, 1996).
Stereotypically, infection of a representative of the outgroup is explained by such labels as gay men, drug (ab)users, refugees, people with haemophilia (Haour-Knipe Rector, 1996). Surely, those people may become the ones within the outgroup, although there are others who are labeled without any evitable reason thus being discriminated.
The case of the AIDS pandemic is presented with a series of case scenarios that raise complex ethical issues related to the AIDS pandemic (Reamer, 1991). There are a bunch of occasions when people were infected without knowing about it. Whether it is ethical to judge those who are infected, not taking into account the way it has been transmitted, still seems to remain the question under discussion. Nonetheless, ethics presume humanity and moral attitude towards all representatives of a particular community.
Currently, human beings deal with a range of serious problems which create heated debates among both caring and indifferent people. Any question involves a necessity to judge; thus, judgmental predispositions mainly depend on stereotypical markers which, in turn, prescribe a certain viewpoint. Moreover, difficult issues concerning human wrongful conceptions lead to standard reactions that seem to be explained by particular factors discussed by several scientists. Among others, the so-called tilde factor is aimed at subconscious differentiation between the disgusting and the immoral (Fearn, 1998). Therefore, human nature normally includes a mixture of worries about safety, though ethical concerns may seem to become the question of morality. This paper will pertain to the following disputable ethical dilemmas: abortions and AIDS.
Concerning the issues around the subject of abortion, the conception of moral permissibility is still ambiguous. Undoubtedly, every human has a right to live; thus, every fetus has its arguments for having the same right. David Boonin, in his investigations, explains the controversy of this question proving his perspective that abortion can still be shown to be morally permissible on the critic of abortion's own terms (Boonin, 2003). Nevertheless, he takes into account the arguments that give an embryo a right to life which are based on the golden rule and, of course, on the majority of feminist-directed theories (Boonin, 2003). Besides, the abortion dilemma is the key concept in ethical teachings in the spheres of law and medicine.
According to statistics, abortion remains a huge ethical dilemma and controversial issue for physicians. Doctors are considered to be passionate about this problem as much as the rest of the country's citizens. Everyone's point of view is determined by a complex of various factors including religious, political, scientific, and medical convictions. Statistically, 25 percent of physicians regard abortion to be legal under any circumstances, 51 percent say it should be legal only under certain circumstances. That 25 percent is a far cry from the 69 percent of physicians who voted for unequivocal legality (Pennachio, 2002).
A majority of doctors are opposed to performing abortions in practice considering it to be the terrible, irrefutable reality in killing babies for the convenience of the parents (Pennachio, 2002). Though the procedure is legal, it does not necessarily mean the legality of the moral. Intentions of pro-life representatives involve saving lives not killing people. Besides, medicine does not require people to kill or to die; it is meant to help them with unavoidable health problems, though not to impose certain ethical values. Whether abortions should be legal depends on a particular case. Most medical workers consider that it has to be legal but very rare and happening under particular circumstances. Nonetheless, they try to avoid philosophical and ethical issues taking into consideration a mixture of scientifically proven standards and safeguards. Besides, the physician's duty is to explain all options to the patient who afterwards should make a decision without doctor's interference.
Surely, abortion is a very unpleasant topic both for women and men who unfortunately face this ethical dilemma and have to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy or not. Some consider it to be though legal but morally wrong, while others do not accept a fetus as a living being thus presenting the non-religious viewpoint. Nevertheless, there are very rare occasions when the best thing to do is to perform an abortion. Those concern genetic complications, medical indications, or rapes; although the latter is not necessarily an excuse. Therefore, population has a mixed opinion on the issue of abortion, thus avoiding it because of its fairly controversial, religious, political, and personal nature.
The dilemma of abortion is ethicality connected to the issue of AIDS to some extent. There are cases of performing abortions exactly because of a mother's HIV positive status. The retrovirus HIV that possibly leads to AIDS is regarded to have crossed to humans from monkey species, thus laying foundation for several theories and principles of ethics. Ethics deals with determination of what is right and what is wrong, but it also demonstrates the complexity of these values presented in ethical models. Moreover, particular norms, standards, values, and principles, existing in a certain community, are based on stereotypical convictions. Nevertheless, there are various individual beliefs, life experiences, and cultural backgrounds that influence human's perspectives and therefore there is no unequivocal conclusion in this controversial ethical dilemma.
Concerning HIV infection, discrimination and outgroup labelling emerge as an obvious hazard. HIV was often described in terms of cross border travel in the early accounts and conceptualized as an imported problem (Haour-Knipe Rector, 1996). Stereotypically, infection of a representative of the outgroup is explained by such labels as gay men, drug (ab)users, refugees, people with haemophilia (Haour-Knipe Rector, 1996). Surely, those people may become the ones within the outgroup, although there are others who are labeled without any evitable reason thus being discriminated.
The case of the AIDS pandemic is presented with a series of case scenarios that raise complex ethical issues related to the AIDS pandemic (Reamer, 1991). There are a bunch of occasions when people were infected without knowing about it. Whether it is ethical to judge those who are infected, not taking into account the way it has been transmitted, still seems to remain the question under discussion. Nonetheless, ethics presume humanity and moral attitude towards all representatives of a particular community.
