Abortion Policy Paper free essay sample

In this document you will find my view on Abortion, and the policy I have proposed. You will also see the history and views of abortion. | PART 1: DEFINITION OF POLICY ISSUE Abortion is the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. Abortion is a highly controversial topic. It is controversial because there are many people on both sides of the issue, all with strong opinions. Some people may look at what is morally right, and not what is best for the mother or child. Abortion dates back to the ancient times, when the first settlers arrived and was legal. In the 1800’s states began to make abortion illegal. In that time period, abortion was considered extremely risky. At that time hospitals and antiseptics was not common. Between 1967 and 1973, one-third of the state’s liberalized or repealed their criminal abortion laws. However, on January 22, 1973 the court case Roe v. We will write a custom essay sample on Abortion Policy Paper or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Wade made abortion legal and changed the public health policy. Abortion is important today because of funding and how people view the issue. Many think that money from the federal government should not fund abortions. For example, the Arkansas senate is aiming to cut off state funds to abortion providers. Another example is the North Dakota governor signed the â€Å"Heartbeat† Abortion Ban. Abortion is also important because of the role it plays in rape crimes, orphanages, and life threatening situations. Such as if a girl can not bear a child, or if the mother has seizures or other diseases. Also, our nation’s political parties have chosen sides on abortion. Democrats are liberal, they side with pro-choice. Republicans side with pro-life. Obama favors abortion; he thinks the choice of abortion should be up to the woman and her doctor. Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and George W. Bush are pro-life. Mitt Romney thinks women should only get an abortion unless it involves cases of rape, incest, or if the mother’s life is in mortal danger. All in all, abortion is still important today, it involves the society and our political parties. There are two sides to the abortion issue, pro-life and pro-choice. Pro-life believes in advocating full legal protection of embryos and fetuses. Pro-choice believes in advocating a woman’s right to control her own body. Both the pro-choice and pro-life have convincing arguments. An argument for pro-life is: â€Å"Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life. Abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life. † An argument for pro-choice is: â€Å"Nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester, when a fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity as it cannot exist outside her womb. † There are many other arguments, viewpoints, and opinions. The one I listed is the ones I find most convincing. PART 2: MY POSITION My view on abortion is that women should be able to choose and decide for themselves. I am pro-choice. I am pro-choice because I think making abortion illegal will cause more women to die. Every year, 78,000 women die from unsafe abortions. I also think that religious idealology is no foundation for any law. Freedom of religion is guaranteed in the first amendment. I am pro-choice because I think it is unfair for a woman who has been raped to carry out her pregnancy. Also, if incest occurred, it is unsafe for the victim to have the baby. Teen girls whose bodies are not yet ready to bear a child are five times more likely to die from abortion. Each year 70,000 girls, aged 15-19 die from pregnancy and child birth. Abortion also reduces the number of children in orphanages. These are the most important facts of why I am pro-choice. Although I am pro-choice, there are compelling arguments from the pro-life side. Abortion should be illegal because abortion is just like murder. Also, an abortion can result in medical complications later in life such as pelvic inflammatory disease. Abortion should not be used as another form of contraceptive. Women who want â€Å"control over their body† should be responsible and prevent unwanted pregnancy. Preventing an unwanted pregnancy is by being smart, responsible, and using contraceptives like condoms and birth control. Abortion also causes intense psychological pain and stress. But, so does carrying a child that you got from being a victim of rape or incest. PART 3: PROPOSAL AND POLICY SOLUTION As a congressman, I propose that you consider funding abortion. However, only in cases in which the mother was raped, incest, health risking, or doesn’t have the funds to raise a baby. Some positive things you could do include: having classes, fairs, and other occasions to raise awareness of abortion and it’s after effects. Funding for abortion should be made available to clinics in low income places and women centers. Overall, as a congressman you should fund abortion, not everyone has the funds. Abortions cost anywhere from $350 to $550. If you don’t fund abortion it’s an infringement of a woman’s right. With the recommendations I listed, I propose that you go to places where not many people know about abortion. Also, you could reach out to local hospitals and high schools. If abortion is funded it can potentially decrease the number of unsafe abortions and death tolls. I am glad to have showed you my views and other views from different people. I am pro-choice and I think that you should fund abortion.

The Problem of Induction Goodmans Virtuous Circle

The Problem of Induction Goodmans Virtuous Circle Free Online Research Papers Inferences made from a set of observed statements of fact to an unobserved statement of fact, without formal entailment, are referred to as inductive inferences. Inferences may be drawn from particular observations to a general law or from particular observations to another. The following are types of inductive inferences: (1) Induction about periodic events (e.g. the rotation of the earth about it’s axis) (2) Induction about interaction between external materials (e.g. acid turning blue litmus red) (3) Induction about interaction between external materials and the self (e.g. bread will provide nourishment, i.e. ingestion of bread will provide ‘feeling’ of nourishment) All these types of induction conform to the relation of cause and effect. As Hume pointed out in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, all reasoning about matters of fact is governed by the relation of cause and effect. It establishes this relation on the basis of past experience. The human mind observes certain effects from certain kinds of causes and learns to expect the same effects from similar causes in the future. This expectation becomes stronger with repeated observations of the same cause-effect relation. For example, since birth we observe the sun rising every morning and from that knowledge, we infer that it would rise the following morning. With every passing day, our belief in this phenomenon grows stronger because of the satisfaction of the previous expectation. Skepticism of Induction Skeptics agree that inductive reasoning is inherent in human nature. But there stance is that we have no justification to believe those beliefs or predictions that we have obtained by employing inductive reasoning. Inherent in an inductive inference, is the assumption that nature will remain consistent, that the future shall conform to the past. The statement: â€Å"It has been found that cause x has always had an effect y in the past† is not logically followed by: â€Å"In the future, cause x will be followed by effect y.† The above two propositions are distinct and the second is not a logical necessity, given the first. But based on our above discussion of human inductive reasoning, we know that such inferences are being made all the time. Hume claims that he is unable to ascertain the chain of reasoning by which this inference is made. It is clear that this is not backed by deduction. This inference aims to yield information (conclusions) over and beyond the semantic content of the premises. There is no demonstrative argument that explains this kind of inference frequently employed by humans. That there is none is evident from the observation that a denial of the second proposition is not contradictory. Clearly, it is not evident that objects must have a tendency to move towards the earth in the future, even though that has been the case since all of mankind, and billions of years before that, as claimed by scientists. Since inductive reasoning is not backed by deduction, there must an alternative form of reasoning. One might argue that only those inductive inferences are justified, that are based on causal events, as opposed to the accidental events. Hence, we might say that the occurrence of an accident right after a black cat crosses one’s path is purely coincidental (contrary to what some people would believe), while acid turning blue litmus paper to red is a causal event. Therefore, causal events are justified inferences while non-causal events are not justified, and hence invalid inferences. Therefore, the constant conjunction of the contact of blue litmus paper with acid, and its turning red can be treated as a law. Here, a skeptic might argue that there is nothing that contradicts the suggestion that the litmus color conversion by the acid is just a coincidence every single time. It would not be contradictory to deny the occurrence of the litmus color conversion the next time it is tested. Therefore, there would be no way to differentiate the coincidences from the actual lawlike events. Essential to this line of reasoning by the skeptic is that the relation of cause and effect is not based on any reasoning derived from the cause. The cause does not provide any information about the effect in and of itself. The relation between each cause and effect that governs reasoning about matter of fact is arbitrary, at least to the human mind. The mind does not determine the effect from the cause based on any innate feature of the cause. The use of induction is so inherent and natural in humans that it is difficult to even identify certain facts as being learned from inductive reasoning. It is reasonable to assume that almost all of us take the transfer of momentum from one body to another (i.e. impulse) as granted. But there is nothing in the first body or in its nature of motion that would prompt us to think that it will cause the second body to move on. Hume argues and shows us through an example of a collision between billiards balls that it is purely from experience that we can predict the motion beforehand. It is significant, though, that Hume is not referring to prior experience of the motion of those particular billiard balls, or even billiard balls in general. Humans use induction to generalize from the observation of motion in some materials to all other materials. To explain this, we must go back to the cause-effect relation. Through experience, we learn that similar causes yield similar effects. For a common phenomenon like impulse, we come to learn that it applies to all kinds of objects that appear solid to us, and by consistent experience of this kind, we are able to predict the same for all things that appear solid to us, irrespective of whether we have previously observed motion in those particular objects. Ayer’s reply: Descriptive analysis Ayer responds to the skeptic’s attack by questioning the intent behind the question raised by the skeptic. He agrees that the inductive argument always involves an assumption about the uniformity of nature and that it relies on the belief that the future shall resemble the past. It is clear that there is no demonstrative or deductive reasoning to justify induction. Also, it has been shown that any other reasoning will either be inadequate or will result in a logically circular argument. Inductive inference suggests a belief in instances of which we have no experience, based on instances of which we do. In view of the above, it seems that the skeptic’s demand is illegitimate. He is asking for a proof which cannot possibly be presented. The only reasoning that can be presented involves logical circularity since it needs inductive inferences to justify them. The question is such that it is clear that there is no comprehensive solution. As Ayer mentioned – â€Å"A proof which is formally correct will not do the work, and a proof which does the work will not be formally correct.† So it seems that the endeavor to seek an answer to such a question is futile. But the skeptics cannot argue that induction is irrational. The scientific method is based on induction, and it defines the standard of rationality. Therefore, induction does not fail to meet the standard of rationality, merely because it defines it. Therefore, by asking the question, the skeptic seems to be questioning the standards of rationality. The skeptic does point out the absence of a proof, but since it is obvious that this demand cannot be met, the question is not troubling anymore, and hence, does not need further consideration. As Ayer pointed out, there is no need for worry as there is logically, no higher court of jurisdiction, so it is allowable for inductive reasoning to decide its own case. Goodman’s virtuous circle Goodman approaches the subject along similar lines as Ayer in that he agrees with the shortcomings of induction that what has happened imposes no logical restrictions on what will happen, but disagrees with skeptics in that there is no justification for the employment of induction as a method of inference. He protests against a sharp division between the description/explanation of induction and its justification. Based on the fallacious arguments by other philosophers, the search for a clear argument for justification of induction is fruitless and therefore, Goodman asserts that the skeptic’s query is illegitimate because it asks for answers that are not available, and never will be. His point of difference with Ayer is that he goes on to analyze the foundations of deduction as a valid method of inference, in order to come up with a justification for induction. An argument is deemed logical (conforming to deduction) if it conforms to the general rules of deductive inference. But these general rules of deductive inference must themselves be justified. Philosophers have tried to justify these rules by asserting that they follow from some basic axiom or by basing the rules in human nature. In either case, the argument seems to be emerging from human intuition. Goodman argues that the answer is simpler, and that the rules of deductive inference are based on, and hence justified by our deductive practice. So, the justification of general rules of deduction is dependent on their acceptance or rejection of accepted deductive inferences. Deductive inferences are justified by their conformance to valid general rules of deduction, while the general rules themselves are backed by their conformance to accepted valid inferences. Clearly, this is circular. But here, Goodman argues that the logic is circular, but the circle is a virtuous circle, i.e. this is the only method by which we may justify deduction. This mutual adjustment between inferences and rules is the basis for deduction. Goodman’s virtuous circle applies to induction as well. Therefore, an inductive reference is justified by conformance to generally accepted inductive rules and these rules in turn are justified by accepted inferences. As opposed to deduction, though, these general rules of induction are not well established, and there needs to be a consensus on valid canons of induction. Therefore, the problem of induction is reduced from that of justification to description. With this conclusion, Goodman asserts that questions concerning the justification for induction, as different from an explanation of it, are illegitimate. Crystal ball justification Induction is intuitive and is employed by humans naturally. When people reason about matters of fact using induction, they do not think about justifications for their reasoning. It develops naturally as a habit. This was the description or explanation of induction given by Hume and later supported by Goodman. Inductive reasoning (which is happening all the time) tends to predict or expect events that have been most consistent. On the other hand, crystal balls do not come naturally to people, and there is no â€Å"crystal ball practice† that is inherent in our nature, as opposed to the inductive practice discussed by Goodman. Also, induction is generally successful with predictions more often that crystal balls, which supports its usage. Hence, crystal ball justification of crystal ball inferences does not undermine induction. Research Papers on The Problem of Induction Comparison: Letter from Birmingham and CritoUnreasonable Searches and SeizuresCapital PunishmentGenetic EngineeringResearch Process Part OneRelationship between Media Coverage and Social andThe Effects of Illegal ImmigrationThe Spring and AutumnEffects of Television Violence on Children